The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: midweststache on July 28, 2015, 09:26:14 AM
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
-
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate. I have some preferences who I'd like it to be (NOT TRUMP! and I don't think a Bush can win) but they are all basically the same to me right now.
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill) and I think Sanders would wreck the economy just on the dubious basis of "getting the rich people".
-
Leaning heavily Sanders at the moment (and the poll is showing similar!), but I'm very far from committed.
-
I didn't vote, simply because how could I possibly know already?
-
Not sure. I cannot imagine voting for any of the clowns in the GOP. (Wow, does that slate of candidates stink on ice...) Bernie, well... in many ways, I agree with him on economic and social issues. But I don't think he can win, nor, frankly, am I sure he's a better candidate than Hillary. And Hillary... well, unfortunately, I just don't like her. She's competent and extremely experienced, I'll give her that. But I will and would vote for either Democratic candidate (yes, I'm ignoring Lincoln Chafee), because frankly, either of them is better than the Republican candidates.
It's a sad, sad state of affairs.
-
Being Canadian I can't vote, but am really pulling for Trump. You guys haven't had a good belly-laugh idiot of an American president to point at for eight years . . .
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
-
Being Canadian I can't vote, but am really pulling for Trump. You guys haven't had a good belly-laugh idiot of an American president to point at for eight years . . .
Why can't you vote? We don't check anyway.
I like Kasich.
Midwest
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
It's probably a national defense thing. Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
It's probably a national defense thing. Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Last I saw he was at 24% in the poll of Republican primary voters. The next closest person was 13%.
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
It's probably a national defense thing. Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Last I saw he was at 24% in the poll of Republican primary voters. The next closest person was 13%.
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
It's probably a national defense thing. Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Last I saw he was at 24% in the poll of Republican primary voters. The next closest person was 13%.
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
Last time Michelle Bachmann was leading the polls for awhile. She had no chance. I think Trump has a bigger chance.
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
It's probably a national defense thing. Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Last I saw he was at 24% in the poll of Republican primary voters. The next closest person was 13%.
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
Last time Michelle Bachmann was leading the polls for awhile. She had no chance. I think Trump has a bigger chance.
I don't think she ever got close to Romney in the polls:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421119/reminder-four-years-ago-michele-bachmann-was-getting-same-share-polls-donald-trump
-
I don't think Trump has a chance to get the GOP nod, much less actually win it. He's too extreme and doesn't have enough political background to do well. Plus he has shown he loves to put his foot in his mouth. He'll be great for headlines and attacking the Dems, but doesn't really stand even a puncher's chance.
My biggest problem is I can't really stand behind anyone that is currently running. I don't believe any of the bunch would make a good president (in their current 'state' before the parties change their messages). I feel like it's going to come down to Bush/Walker for the GOP nod, and that guy will get my vote (currently) but I'm really hoping for someone to standout to me.
I like the ideas of Sanders, but like Trump, he's too extreme and wouldn't do well in a general election - but I think he would be the best of the current group. However, I'm not sure he can get past Hilary.
So my rankings putting both ideals and likelihood of being on the ballot - Bush, Walker, Sanders, random GOP guy.
-
OMG...
Okay, trying very hard not to judge here, but 12% for Donald Trump??? Can someone please explain this? I'm not sure if that number is from Canadians who enjoy laughing at the States, or people who might believe he would be a good president.
It's probably a national defense thing. Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Last I saw he was at 24% in the poll of Republican primary voters. The next closest person was 13%.
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
Last time Michelle Bachmann was leading the polls for awhile. She had no chance. I think Trump has a bigger chance.
I don't think she ever got close to Romney in the polls:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421119/reminder-four-years-ago-michele-bachmann-was-getting-same-share-polls-donald-trump
I guess it depends on the polls:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/21/bachmann-surges-primary-lead/
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/07/bachmann-continues-to-surge.html
-
I don't think she ever got close to Romney in the polls:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421119/reminder-four-years-ago-michele-bachmann-was-getting-same-share-polls-donald-trump
I guess it depends on the polls:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/21/bachmann-surges-primary-lead/
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/07/bachmann-continues-to-surge.html
Interesting! Thanks for those.
At her peak, though, she was polling much better against Obama (-4, -6) than Trump is polling against Clinton (-13, -16).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_bachmann_vs_obama-1941.html#polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
-
I believe climate change is real.
I want the ACA to continue.
I support a woman's right to choose her medical care, including abortion.
Most of all, I want a Supreme Court that supports those last two items.
I'll vote Democratic.
-
Poll left off Kasich.
In the unlikely event Bernie Sanders makes it past primary, he'll be my choice number 2. I don't care for anyone else and see them all about equal (barring the idiots looking for a book deal e.g. Trump)
-
Sanders' politics are closest to mine, but I'm unlikely to cast a vote for him (except maybe in the WA caucus if he's still in the race and if there was no danger of that vote somehow harming the eventual Democratic nominee).
This is a long and good post about Hillary Clinton. She comes off fairly sympathetic. If you're a lefty voter and feel you dislike her, I'd recommend reading it. Not telling anyone how to feel, but there's good information and analysis there.
http://weeklysift.com/2015/07/27/the-2016-stump-speeches-hillary-clinton/
ETA: clarity + left out link.
-
Unless Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination I will vote libertarian.
Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian. http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz Your score may surprise you.
I'm very high libertarian. I support things like drug decriminalization, gay rights, abortion, and guns --- while opposing things like the draft, the government telling me what to think and do, internet spying on us (NSA), lifetime welfare and messing with the affairs of other countries.
If Trump wins the Republican nomination, which actually could happen with his appeal to tea partiers and people who value the concept of a border, I would definitely vote for him just to change the failed trajectory of the country over the last 3 administrations. He would definitely win the border war in like 4 weeks. Other than that and that his current wife is much hotter than Ivan Trump (have you seen your recent pictures?) I have no idea what he would do. Would be fun to watch though.
The Democrats have completely failed us for the last 4 years. Nothing but racism and increasing dependence on Government programs while encouraging illegals aliens. Appealing to their base and no regard for the future of the country.
-
Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian. http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz Your score may surprise you.
This is a quiz intentionally designed to make you "score" as a libertarian. I pay it no credence. Libertarians are absolutely right on a good chunk of issues (call it 30% to make up a number) where a lot (but not all) of "mainstream" politicians are very wrong, and just absolutely nuts on about the same number. Libertarians (like Rand Paul and his father) think it should be OK for businesses to discriminate on race. Rand has changed away from some of his good positions (like not getting involved in senseless wars) in order to try to win the primary.
-
I went to se Bernie in New Orleans Sunday. Was a packed house with 5000 followers in Red State Louisiana. Jindal only gathered 1000 in the very same building for his presidential bid. Crazy when a senator from Vermont brings 5x as many people in your own state.
GEAUX BERNIE!
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
-
I'll be voting for anyone but Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is the posterchild for left-wing authoritarianism, a unabashed aristocrat who should no longer be afforded a place in our nation's leadership. Sanders is a populist, an ideology found, and belonging in, the dust bin of history. He has no new ideas, just recycled, intellectual junkfood ideas that aren't practicable.
The Republican opposition is probably going to be a gay hating anti-abortionist, maybe a little racist according to the ever drifting, broad and nebulous leftist definition, but those things are mostly protected by laws that will be difficult to untangle. I think this nation will fare much better under a Republican than under Clinton or sanders.
-
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
I'll be voting for anyone but Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is the posterchild for left-wing authoritarianism, a unabashed aristocrat who should no longer be afforded a place in our nation's leadership.
This is so interesting to me. Can either of you point to specific things that make Clinton crooked, despicable, or authoritarian? I always thought the dislike of Clinton was more for policy issues.
-
Being Canadian I can't vote, but am really pulling for Trump. You guys haven't had a good belly-laugh idiot of an American president to point at for eight years . . .
That's probably because more people would rather cry than laugh at the actions of the current president.
-
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
I'll be voting for anyone but Clinton and Sanders. Clinton is the posterchild for left-wing authoritarianism, a unabashed aristocrat who should no longer be afforded a place in our nation's leadership.
This is so interesting to me. Can either of you point to specific things that make Clinton crooked, despicable, or authoritarian? I always thought the dislike of Clinton was more for policy issues.
Yeah, I don't get it either. Her policies (and Bill's) are actually pretty moderate--that was the whole triangulation strategy behind his 1992 election. I'm not a Hilary fan, but I don't understand how this kind of response can be any different from what a dispassionate observer would say about any of the GOPers. I mean, if you want to talk about a candidate who feels its their birthright to be president, look no further than the guy who's grandfather was a senator, and whose father and brother were presidents. Jeb wouldn't be in the race if not for his station of birth. I agree that Hilary wouldn't be either if not for her husband--but she took a difficult road to get to the White House. Who would have thought that some dude from Arkansas with no family money would be president?
-
I won't vote for Hillary. I'd probably vote for most other Dems. If she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll probably just not vote.
I'm not really sure how the GOP can win the election at this point, no matter their nominee. The economy is in good shape. Once their primaries start and they start tacking further and further to the right, alienating everyone that is not a white Christian male, their fate will be sealed. Just get them talking about how terrible immigrants are, or anything to do with rape (like how men can't rape their wives by definition (thanks Trump team!)), or any of the other issues where they appeal to their base voters over all others, and they'll further their party's decline.
If I was a moderate Republican (not an oxymoron, right?), I'd cringe everytime anyone in my party was asked about immigration. Have none of these people seen demographic projections for the next 30-50 years?
-
I won't vote for Hillary. I'd probably vote for most other Dems. If she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll probably just not vote.
I'm not really sure how the GOP can win the election at this point, no matter their nominee.
Well, for a start, maybe thanks to all the Democrats who refuse to vote for Hillary?
-
Didn't vote in this poll (no point an Aussie skewing the numbers) but...
I like the ideas of Sanders,
Anyone else notice the fall-down-drunk funny irony of the above post? Chicken liking Sanders... KFC and the Colonel...geddit?
sorry for the interruption, carry on.
-
I won't vote for Hillary. I'd probably vote for most other Dems. If she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll probably just not vote.
I'm not really sure how the GOP can win the election at this point, no matter their nominee.
Well, for a start, maybe thanks to all the Democrats who refuse to vote for Hillary?
Yeah, I guess that could be a way. In the past, low turnout has generally favored the Republicans. But that usually is more of an off year thing, not a Presidential election year thing. It's all speculation at this point anyway.
-
Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian. http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz Your score may surprise you.
This is a quiz intentionally designed to make you "score" as a libertarian. I pay it no credence. Libertarians are absolutely right on a good chunk of issues (call it 30% to make up a number) where a lot (but not all) of "mainstream" politicians are very wrong, and just absolutely nuts on about the same number. Libertarians (like Rand Paul and his father) think it should be OK for businesses to discriminate on race. Rand has changed away from some of his good positions (like not getting involved in senseless wars) in order to try to win the primary.
I honestly don't get how Rand Paul even feels like he can describe himself as a Libertarian anymore. At least his dad was more or less true to libertarian principles. Rand is just a shapeshifter.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
-
Great Taste!
-
Less Filling?
-
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/6ad206d3eeab667298910447a215644b/tumblr_mmr1dzovO21rcy99do1_400.gif)
-
Gary Johnson if he runs again.
-
I think I'll just write in Ralph Nader
-
I'll vote for anybody except Hillary or Jeb!
-
If I was a moderate Republican (not an oxymoron, right?),
Um, I'm a moderate Republican, and a lot of younger Republicans are the same way. I'd happily vote for a moderate Dem over an extremist Rep any day, but this is the main problem in today's political environment - everyone wants the moderates to win, but only the extreme interest groups give money - so candidates have to go to the extremes to get the money to run/campaign.
Rather than all the 'normal' ways to win - we have to get the women vote, the black vote, the old vote, the young vote, the 'other group that doesn't matter' vote - if a candidate would just focus on the middle where most of the people are, they would win. I honestly believe that 80% of the young votes have 0 aligence to a party, and just want people to focus on crap that matters to everyone - not the 3 or 4 nit-pick issues that only affect certain groups.
I always draw a line - with 1 being liberal and 100 being conservative. If I rank myself as a 60, am I closer to someone ranking as a moderate Dem (40) than a full fledged conservative (99)? I vote for who I align with, and in recent terms, that's been no one (when I just for the least wrong/evil, b/c if you don't vote you give up your right to complain, and I love complaining!).
I feel like for the 4th of my as many presidential elections, I'm going to end up voting for the least evil rather than someone I feel can run the country well (Bush, Obama, Romney for those who care)
-
Bush was the least evil?
-
That was the Bush Kerry year - so least evil, least incompetent. I couldn't stand Kerry, he just seemed like such a tool, worst than W, which is really hard to do. But yes, I thought Bush2 > Kerry.
-
That was the Bush Kerry year - so least evil, least incompetent. I couldn't stand Kerry, he just seemed like such a tool, worst than W, which is really hard to do. But yes, I thought Bush2 > Kerry.
What about Kerry was evil or incompetent? He gave long-winded speeches and wasn't very inspiring. Like most people running for president he seemed to want the job more than having a cause he was fighting for. But I didn't see evil or that much incompetence. Curious to hear what you saw.
-
I'm all in for Bernie Sanders at the moment. He tells it like it is, doesn't want any corporations riding easy off the rest of us, champions equality for all (for his whole career, unlike Hillary who suddenly was okay with gays in 2013) and, best of all, doesn't take money from super pacs. In fact, he wants to eliminate them altogether as well as getting rid of lobbying and reversing Citizens United. If he can get elected just using money from the general public pool of donors instead of taking money from giant corporations like basically every candidate ever, I'd say he deserves it.
When you have Hillary doing things like dodging questions about basic issues like the Keystone XL Pipeline (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/jul/28/hillary-clinton-dodges-questions-about-keystone-xl-pipeline-video (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/jul/28/hillary-clinton-dodges-questions-about-keystone-xl-pipeline-video)), which will quite likely be on the next president's plate, and stating that she'll answer when she's in office, that is very suspicious.
If I absolutely had to pick a Republican candidate, it would be Rand Paul at the moment. If only for his stances on so-called corporate welfare, the income tax code and lobbying.
-
That was the Bush Kerry year - so least evil, least incompetent. I couldn't stand Kerry, he just seemed like such a tool, worst than W, which is really hard to do. But yes, I thought Bush2 > Kerry.
You weren't just voting for Bush though. You were voting for him AND Cheney, the puppetmaster. That's the torture/war-crimes combo that managed to permanently damaged US credibility through their actions. How do you rationalize that as the less evil choice?
-
Oh God, president Cheney! I completely forgot about him.
-
Oh God, president Cheney! I completely forgot about him.
Cheney's trailer hitch:
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-IS128_CHENEY_G_20150602101630.jpg)
-
Rather than all the 'normal' ways to win - we have to get the women vote, the black vote, the old vote, the young vote, the 'other group that doesn't matter' vote - if a candidate would just focus on the middle where most of the people are, they would win.
By "normal way to win" do you really mean to say "only appeal to wealthy Christian white males"? Because that's kind of what you sound like.
As for the bit about "focusing on the middle" to the exclusion of women, minorities, old people, and young people, I suggest you spend some time with latest US demographic data. Those people are the new middle.
-
it seems like 12 voters have voted since I last looked at this and they all voted Rand Paul... he used to have 3 votes compared to the 17 of Bernie Sanders
-
Rather than all the 'normal' ways to win - we have to get the women vote, the black vote, the old vote, the young vote, the 'other group that doesn't matter' vote - if a candidate would just focus on the middle where most of the people are, they would win.
By "normal way to win" do you really mean to say "only appeal to wealthy Christian white males"? Because that's kind of what you sound like.
As for the bit about "focusing on the middle" to the exclusion of women, minorities, old people, and young people, I suggest you spend some time with latest US demographic data. Those people are the new middle.
Yep. The foolish thing is that some politicians think they can be elected by alienating minorities, women, and anyone who doesn't hate gay people. Guess what? Gay-loving Mexican women are the new voting majority! (Or they will be, very soon.)
Shocking to see how many politicians use veiled language like "the Real America" and "The good old days" and think that we don't know that means "back when/where blacks and women knew their place."
The whole primary system just cracks me up, because the only people who really care at this stage in the game are the ones who are most passionate, which usually means they are the crazies on both ends. So you end up with people like Trump polling #1 and very few people willing to take on the Hillary juggernaut (and I say that as a Hillary fan) (and one of the crazies).
I think it will be a Clinton/Christie election, if Christie can make it through the primaries with his wildly liberal (to most conservatives) history.
-
it seems like 12 voters have voted since I last looked at this and they all voted Rand Paul... he used to have 3 votes compared to the 17 of Bernie Sanders
Yeah, glad to see Rand making progress!
Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though? Is someone stuffing the ballot box? And what about the Democrats? Is that the best they could come up with? Where are the freaking Dems? Sanders is an independent for God sake.
So here is a dream final election --
Hillary and Jeb both win their primaries as expected. Then Trump and Sanders decide to run as independents as well. Trump of course would syphon off enough Republicans to spell disaster for Jeb but it would be curious to see if an up front clueless socialist could take any votes from Hilary. It just might happen as Hilary's negatives are very high.
I feel sorry for Hilary really. Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie. Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are? I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983. Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO.
-
Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though? Is someone stuffing the ballot box?
Pretty sure this forum leans VERY heavily democratic, from what I've seen in any posts that are even remotely political (and a bunch that aren't). I'm not surprised by any of the results.
I feel sorry for Hilary really. Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie. Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are? I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983. Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO.
Totally disagree here. She's a woman who went though an incredibly humiliating public mess and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and more powerful. She went from being Bill's wife to a Senator, Secretary of State, and major contender for the White House. She raised a brilliant daughter amid all of it. She's an inspiration.
Their marriage doesn't bug me at all. How many millions of husbands and wives have been cheated on and then forgiven their spouse? Good for them for working through it. Are the many marriages of Trump, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich supposed to be a better example? I think the Clintons have a marriage that serves both of them well. Certainly it isn't a paragon of everything that marriage can be, but who cares? That doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to choosing a political leader.
-
Gary Johnson if he runs again.
Me too!
With respect to the Republican field, I actually think the strongest (R) candidate would be Romney, if he were running again. My concern with much of the new crop of Republicans is that, while their focus on budget issues is a welcome change, I'm not sure I agree with their assessment of the difference between "spending" and "investment".
IMHO, what needs to happen is a national-level conversation about what our priorities are for spending/investment, and what the role of our government is/what we'd like it to DO. The philosophical differences between (R) and (D) are rooted in a different conception of what role the government should play, and although in some applications they'd be mutually-exclusive neither is necessarily wrong. Going as far back as Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, we have seen the debate about government scope (although they were mostly concerned about representation then). Bringing this back full-circle, I think a Sanders vs. (Romney/Paul/someone with a consistently conservative outlook) would be the most productive and worth watching precisely because of their different perspectives (assuming their ability to maintain candor and intellectual honesty, which might be a stretch).
I'm also curious, anyone else think the next President could realistically be someone who isn't officially in the race yet?
-
I feel sorry for Hilary really. Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie. Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are? I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983. Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO.
Why does her marriage matter so much to people? It's not really anyone's business. Maybe she stands by her wedding vows or believes in her stated religion that says you shouldn't get a divorce or just believes they are better together? So she's unlucky enough to be among the half(??) of marriages that involve infidelity--along with quite a few other presidents who had mistresses. What does that have to do with governing?
Estimates today find married men cheating at rates between 25 percent and 72 percent. Given that many people are loath to admit that they cheat, research on cheating may underestimate its prevalence. But it appears that cheating is as common as fidelity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-cheating/2012/02/08/gIQANGdaBR_story.html
-
Totally disagree here. She's a woman who went though an incredibly humiliating public mess and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and more powerful. She went from being Bill's wife to a Senator, Secretary of State, and major contender for the White House. She raised a brilliant daughter amid all of it. She's an inspiration.
Their marriage doesn't bug me at all. How many millions of husbands and wives have been cheated on and then forgiven their spouse? Good for them for working through it. Are the many marriages of Trump, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich supposed to be a better example? I think the Clintons have a marriage that serves both of them well. Certainly it isn't a paragon of everything that marriage can be, but who cares? That doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to choosing a political leader.
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
-
My picks:
1: Christie
2: Paul
3: Sanders
(Considerable distance)
4: Bush
5: Carson
(WAYYY More distance)
6: Clinton
(WAYYYYYYYY More distance)
All the rest. Maybe Graham deserves more, but I know nothing about him. More than likely though, I vote Libertarian. Again.
-
I feel sorry for Hilary really. Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie. Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are? I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983. Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO.
Why does her marriage matter so much to people? It's not really anyone's business. Maybe she stands by her wedding vows or believes in her stated religion that says you shouldn't get a divorce or just believes they are better together? So she's unlucky enough to be among the half(??) of marriages that involve infidelity--along with quite a few other presidents who had mistresses. What does that have to do with governing?
Because I believe she is staying in it for power, for her own advancement and not for that of the country. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she did divorce the slimeball.
Of course, my opinion might have been prejiduced due to my dad having gone to high school with her and playing football with her brothers. Not a high opinion of that family in my family even before the politics.
-
Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian. http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz Your score may surprise you.
This is a quiz intentionally designed to make you "score" as a libertarian. I pay it no credence. Libertarians are absolutely right on a good chunk of issues (call it 30% to make up a number) where a lot (but not all) of "mainstream" politicians are very wrong, and just absolutely nuts on about the same number. Libertarians (like Rand Paul and his father) think it should be OK for businesses to discriminate on race. Rand has changed away from some of his good positions (like not getting involved in senseless wars) in order to try to win the primary.
Just for fun I took the quiz and, reading the questions I was expecting it to 'score' me as libertarian. Instead, it put me smack in the middle as a moderate. However, it still suggested that i should consider voting libertarian:
Like many Americans, you have a mixed view of government's role in individual's lives, and you don't strongly identify with any particular school of political thought.
Of course very few people will have "perfect scores" in any one direction, and you fall smack-dab in the center of it all. You might appreciate the way libertarians transcend the left-right spectrum
-
I feel sorry for Hilary really. Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie. Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are? I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983. Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO.
Why does her marriage matter so much to people? It's not really anyone's business. Maybe she stands by her wedding vows or believes in her stated religion that says you shouldn't get a divorce or just believes they are better together? So she's unlucky enough to be among the half(??) of marriages that involve infidelity--along with quite a few other presidents who had mistresses. What does that have to do with governing?
Estimates today find married men cheating at rates between 25 percent and 72 percent. Given that many people are loath to admit that they cheat, research on cheating may underestimate its prevalence. But it appears that cheating is as common as fidelity.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-cheating/2012/02/08/gIQANGdaBR_story.html
Oh I have no problem with Bill being a serial cheater. I just feel sorry for Hillary. That's all. I've seen cheating situations before and I can tell you it isn't pretty. I'm guessing that after the first 10 years she just got used to it. The Monica thing probably didn't even phase her and she just went straight to the "how do we leverage this situation for political advantage" playbook.
So I guess she really is a good role model for women given the fact that you pointed out that their spouses are very likely to cheat or have cheated. She has in fact "stood by her man" just like Tammy said to do. And that has made all the difference. Wish more marriages would hang even though they suck.
-
Here's another fun political quiz to see where you are on the spectrum.
http://www.celebritytypes.com/political-coordinates/test.php
-
Bernie. No question.
-
Here is a very quick quiz that will show you where you fall on the spectrum of liberal, moderate, conservative, libertarian, authoritarian. http://www.cato.org/libertarianmind/libertarian-quiz Your score may surprise you.
This is a quiz intentionally designed to make you "score" as a libertarian. I pay it no credence. Libertarians are absolutely right on a good chunk of issues (call it 30% to make up a number) where a lot (but not all) of "mainstream" politicians are very wrong, and just absolutely nuts on about the same number. Libertarians (like Rand Paul and his father) think it should be OK for businesses to discriminate on race. Rand has changed away from some of his good positions (like not getting involved in senseless wars) in order to try to win the primary.
Just for fun I took the quiz and, reading the questions I was expecting it to 'score' me as libertarian. Instead, it put me smack in the middle as a moderate. However, it still suggested that i should consider voting libertarian:
Like many Americans, you have a mixed view of government's role in individual's lives, and you don't strongly identify with any particular school of political thought.
Of course very few people will have "perfect scores" in any one direction, and you fall smack-dab in the center of it all. You might appreciate the way libertarians transcend the left-right spectrum
I think that is very good advice indeed. Libertarianism is really a heightened moderate viewpoint. We call bull shit on both the left and right.
We're not opposed to a lot of the government programs if they make sense and are not funded by taxes. But come on 50 years of war on poverty and no improvement? Wouldn't you think someone would notice or at least acknowledge the program as a failure? And don't get me started on the military industrial complex.
-
Totally disagree here. She's a woman who went though an incredibly humiliating public mess and came out on the other side stronger, wiser, and more powerful. She went from being Bill's wife to a Senator, Secretary of State, and major contender for the White House. She raised a brilliant daughter amid all of it. She's an inspiration.
Their marriage doesn't bug me at all. How many millions of husbands and wives have been cheated on and then forgiven their spouse? Good for them for working through it. Are the many marriages of Trump, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich supposed to be a better example? I think the Clintons have a marriage that serves both of them well. Certainly it isn't a paragon of everything that marriage can be, but who cares? That doesn't mean anything to me when it comes to choosing a political leader.
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency. "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take." I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president.
In other news, Sanders informed us he thinks no one should have guns that aren't for hunting, so buh-bye, enjoy your trip back to VT.
-
This seems as good a place as any to drop this link:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/10/the-battle-to-lose-independent-vote.html
-
Here's another fun political quiz to see where you are on the spectrum.
http://www.celebritytypes.com/political-coordinates/test.php
Interesting test. Thanks
My score =
Right-liberalism (Libertarianism): Individuals in this quadrant seek to uphold liberty as the primary political good in all respects. They tend to see themselves as staunch supporters of both personal and economic freedom and are deeply skeptical of collective plans and goals, stressing instead the principle of voluntary association and the individual’s capacity to make his own judgments. They typically see less of a role for the state than individuals in the other three quadrants, believing instead in the spontaneous social order of the market.
-
I'm also curious, anyone else think the next President could realistically be someone who isn't officially in the race yet?
Yes. It would be an uphill battle for the nomination, but someone like Joe Biden or Mitt Romney could enter the race and have a decent shot.
-
I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.
Regarding the elections:
1. We should have ranked voting primaries with out required allegiance to some political party (allegiance requirement varies by state, and has been contested in court back and forth here in WA over the years. It's bullshit).
2. The American populace tends to elect or discard candidates based on things that have little to do with their fitness or competency for office. We run our elections like reality TV and then put the winner in a position with real power and consequences. Can you even imagine the international shitshow that what would ensue if somebody like Trump had to negotiate ANYTHING with Russia, China, or any of our European allies?
3. The two party system does not serve us, as voters, well. It is ripe for manipulation and limits our options. Years in which there were 3 candidates (gasp!) were considered disasters because the competition somehow allowed the election to be "stolen". I have not always liked the outcomes of those elections, but I thought they were more interesting and appropriate than the standard party-line hold your nose and vote scenario.
4. Vote by mail should be an easy/standard option in all voting districts, nationwide. Our country has too long a history of voter disenfranchisement via voting during specific hours on work days at specified locations that may not have adequate facilities.
-
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency. "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take." I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president.
So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers? interesting.
I'm still not convinced that this justifies the response. "I'm going to stay in this marriage for my kids / I'm going to stay in this marriage to keep up appearances / I'm going to stay in this marriage because of our job situation / I'm going to stay in this marriage because it's good for me as a politician".
There are lots of reasons why people stay in marriages after they've been cheated on, and some are better than others. My point is that I don't think it is fair to judge someone more harshly for staying in a marriage after being cheated on compared to someone who has had multiple affairs and multiple divorces.
-
I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.
I want to vote for someone I can pretend to trust, and someone who I think will not fuck up the country. While Sanders may not do things the way I like, I think he is overall one of the better candidates.
Frankly, I don't care about left or right. I care about our country running smoothly. I think he can do it--I might not like his methods, but they're a hell of a lot better than Cruz.
-
Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Oh GuitarStv - you are always funny but I really LOVE THIS!
Thanks for this!
IOU a drink!
-
Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though? Is someone stuffing the ballot box? And what about the Democrats? Is that the best they could come up with? Where are the freaking Dems? Sanders is an independent for God sake.
The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population. Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.
I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1) The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population
-
Mess with President Trump, and there will be hell toupee.
Oh GuitarStv - you are always funny but I really LOVE THIS!
Thanks for this!
IOU a drink!
That is funny as hell! So I didn't think he wore a toupee -- so I checked. Nope, just a comb forward and over and die job.
http://www.digitalspy.com/celebrity/s79/the-celebrity-apprentice-usa/news/a394400/donald-trump-responds-to-hairpiece-rumors-i-do-not-wear-a-wig.html#~pjQJuYCkrxW6ue
-
Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though? Is someone stuffing the ballot box? And what about the Democrats? Is that the best they could come up with? Where are the freaking Dems? Sanders is an independent for God sake.
The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population. Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.
I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1) The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population
Well I don't think MMM forum posters could be considered normal in the typical sense. We are outliers, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised that we generally pick the non traditional candidates. That, and I'm guessing, probably 50+% of the population has never heard of Sanders or Rand Paul and if they have they have little idea who they are.
Personally, I'm pretty much on the low information diet. I couldn't visually identify Sanders. All's I know about him is that he is pure socialist. I would also be challenged to tell you what any of the Republican's stances are per individual.
I am so looking forward to the first Republican debate. Trump will either go down in flames or just beat the stinking crap out of the others. I assume since he is ahead in the polls he will have center stage. I can also see him brow beating the moderators at Fox. Should be fun.
On the other hand, I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.
-
I really have not decided who I will vote for. As a registered Republican I have not taken the time to look through the 50 candidates to decide who to vote for in the primaries. And most of them are WAY to far to the right for me. I know I will not vote for Bernie or Hillary as my views are different from theirs on the majority of issues.
As far as Trump, the only thing I like about him is that he refuses to play the politics game. I wish more candidates would be as straight forward with where they stand on the different issues.
-
Bernie, but I'll vote for Clinton in the election if he doesn't get the nomination.
-
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency. "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take." I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president.
So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers? interesting.
I don't give a shit if she stays married or not. I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency. As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles. I respect him, even though I disagree with him.
-
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency. "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take." I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president.
So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers? interesting.
I don't give a shit if she stays married or not. I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency. As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles. I respect him, even though I disagree with him.
ok, but that wasn't the question I was asking.
To rephrase; why has Hillary's decision to stay with Bill gotten more negative feedback than numerous other politicians who have had actually had an affair, nad have had several divorces? that's what I have a hard time understanding.
-
Personally, I'm pretty much on the low information diet. I couldn't visually identify Sanders. All's I know about him is that he is pure socialist. I would also be challenged to tell you what any of the Republican's stances are per individual.
You might want to learn a bit more before characterizing him as "pure socialist" unless you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.
I am so looking forward to the first Republican debate. Trump will either go down in flames or just beat the stinking crap out of the others. I assume since he is ahead in the polls he will have center stage. I can also see him brow beating the moderators at Fox. Should be fun.
I am also quite looking forward to the debate. I think it could be the best reality TV ever.
On the other hand, I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.
Um, she's already agreed to 6.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/
-
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency. "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take." I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president.
So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers? interesting.
I don't give a shit if she stays married or not. I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency. As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles. I respect him, even though I disagree with him.
Just about everything that any typical presidential candidate does is calculated for how it will play in the news and the optics. The rarities (like Trump and Sanders) stand out for not doing that. It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard. Again, she's not my candidate. But it doesn't make sense to single her out as power hungry or whatever, and not also mention Cruz, Bush, Cristie, Trump, etc, who are doing it solely for the power. And it literally makes no sense to say both that her decision to remain married was done to look good for political reasons and that her decision to remain married is why people have an irrational hatred of her.
What is the one issue you think Sanders is laser focused on?
-
Personally, I'm pretty much on the low information diet. I couldn't visually identify Sanders. All's I know about him is that he is pure socialist. I would also be challenged to tell you what any of the Republican's stances are per individual.
You might want to learn a bit more before characterizing him as "pure socialist" unless you're exaggerating for dramatic effect.
I am so looking forward to the first Republican debate. Trump will either go down in flames or just beat the stinking crap out of the others. I assume since he is ahead in the polls he will have center stage. I can also see him brow beating the moderators at Fox. Should be fun.
I am also quite looking forward to the debate. I think it could be the best reality TV ever.
On the other hand, I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.
Um, she's already agreed to 6.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/
See there you go! Low information diet baby ------ Why in God's name would she ever agree I have no idea. And 6? Wouldn't one suffice? I guess she just wants the free air time?
-
It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard.
Of course there's a double standard, she's a woman. Nobody would blink twice at a male politician opting to stay with a cheating wife.
-
On the other hand, I can't see Hillary accepting a debate challenge from Sanders.
Um, she's already agreed to 6.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/politics/2016-democratic-debates-hillary-clinton/
See there you go! Low information diet baby ------ Why in God's name would she ever agree I have no idea. And 6? Wouldn't one suffice? I guess she just wants the free air time?
Maybe. But she still has to actually get the votes. If she doesn't participate in debates, there's no way she'd get the nomination. Remember this time 8 years ago she had a pretty similar lead over Obama that she does over Sanders now.
-
i have mixed opinions on Hillary and her record, and the blowback on her regarding their marriage is something I've had a hard time understanding. We routinely elect individuals who are on their 3rd or 4th spouse, often with a history of adultery. I cannot understand why people view her marriage less favorably than so many others. Is it a model to aspire to? Of course not, but it hardly seems like it should count against her.
Because everything about her smacks of calculations and polling and political expediency. "Let's see, 52.3% of the country, including 72.5% of minorities likely to vote and 63.7% of females, thinks it is "more desirable than not" that you stay with your husband so that's the position you should take." I've long agreed with the adage that the person who is likely least deserving of being President is the one who wants it most, and Hillary comes across as by far the most desperate person to be president.
So you see the blow-back on her marriage stemming from a belief that she made that choice based on polling numbers? interesting.
I don't give a shit if she stays married or not. I just think that everything she does is calculated with how it will "play" in the news and what the "optics" are, and therefore she comes accross as unprincipled and having no backbone, everything is for political expediency. As much as I think Sanders is misguided and laser focused on one issue that is, in my mind, a relative non-issue, I would never say the guy doesn't have principles. I respect him, even though I disagree with him.
Just about everything that any typical presidential candidate does is calculated for how it will play in the news and the optics. The rarities (like Trump and Sanders) stand out for not doing that. It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard. Again, she's not my candidate. But it doesn't make sense to single her out as power hungry or whatever, and not also mention Cruz, Bush, Cristie, Trump, etc, who are doing it solely for the power.
Maybe it's because she's been in the public eye for so much longer, or maybe because it's because this was something so intensely personal versus flipping on a political position, I dunno.
And it literally makes no sense to say both that her decision to remain married was done to look good for political reasons and that her decision to remain married is why people have an irrational hatred of her.
I remember A LOT of talk at the time about her decision and the politics of it. And I didn't say that's why PEOPLE have a hatred of her, I said it's a reason I do.
What is the one issue you think Sanders is laser focused on?
Seriously? Income inequality, the man can't shut up about it. And it strikes me that he's trying to fix the "problem" mostly by bringing down the rich, not necessarily by bringing up the poor. I'm all for creating jobs and such, but I don't think telling everyone that it's because "the Koch brothers and other billionaires [you mean like Soros Bernie??????]" are stealing their money that the middle class are "under siege".
[/quote]
-
It seems like Hilary has a special focus among certain people and is held to a double standard.
Of course there's a double standard, she's a woman. Nobody would blink twice at a male politician opting to stay with a cheating wife.
100% disagree, I think it's far more likely that a male (any male) who stays with a cheating spouse is viewed as weak and a pushover versus a female. The spouse who was cheated on is viewed as a victim, and no one respects or likes a male who is a victim.
-
In other news, Sanders informed us he thinks no one should have guns that aren't for hunting, so buh-bye, enjoy your trip back to VT.
I was curious what he actually said, since he's been relatively against gun control bills in the past.
Though he's mostly a dream candidate for progressive advocates, Bernie Sanders has an Achilles heel in the Democratic primary: his past opposition to gun control measures and support for several pro-gun bills backed by the National Rifle Association.
The Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate, revered by progressives on most issues, sought to get right with anti-gun-violence advocates Sunday during an interview on NBC's Meet The Press, days after the latest of many mass shootings in the United States, this time by a gunman at two military centers in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
He sounded nothing like the senator who voted against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993 that imposed background checks and five-day waiting periods for firearm purchases, or the senator who voted to allow guns on Amtrak and to shield gun makers and sellers from liability if their guns are used criminally.
"I come from the state which has virtually no gun control. And yet, I voted to ban certain types of assault weapons, I voted to close the gun show loophole," Sanders told host Chuck Todd, before also calling for stricter background checks. "Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who's involved in domestic abuse situations, people should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America."
Regarding his vote supporting a gun industry immunity bill:
Indeed, he recently defended it on CNN by arguing that a gun manufacturer shouldn't be held accountable for shootings "any more than you'd hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-27/bernie-sanders-defends-gun-record-but-progressives-remain-wary
I don't know. This sounds like he's in favor of people being able to have guns, and always has been. But now his statement is that if the only use of the gun is to kill people, then it shouldn't be for sale. That seems to be not very limiting in practicality--anything can be claimed to be for hunting.
-
I don't know. This sounds like he's in favor of people being able to have guns, and always has been. But now his statement is that if the only use of the gun is to kill people, then it shouldn't be for sale. That seems to be not very limiting in practicality--anything can be claimed to be for hunting.
You have to have the super-secret decoder ring. "Guns meant to kill people" refers invariably to the "evil black rifles" that are incorrectly called "assault weapons." These are often functionally identical to, or even much less powerful than*, common hunting rifles, but they LOOK scarier. They have terrible, baby-killing features like shoulder things that go up that make them incredibly deadly. The whole "you can keep your hunting rifles but not guns meant to kill" is a giant load of bullshit. It also doesn't do much to assure me me continued ability to carry a concealed pistol, which I consider a vital portion of my right to defend myself.
*A fun question to ask gun grabbers is "would you rather be shot by an AR-15 'assault rifle' or a .308 hunting rifle" and then show them the two rounds in question and watch their eyes go wide
-
I really have not decided who I will vote for. As a registered Republican I have not taken the time to look through the 50 candidates to decide who to vote for in the primaries. And most of them are WAY to far to the right for me. I know I will not vote for Bernie or Hillary as my views are different from theirs on the majority of issues.
As far as Trump, the only thing I like about him is that he refuses to play the politics game. I wish more candidates would be as straight forward with where they stand on the different issues.
This comment is in response to Proudfoot and Chris22 re: whether Trump is playing the politics or polls game. I think he is TOTALLY plying the polls, the media, and a politics game! He's just changing some of the rules. Everything he does is to hear his name in the media again - which plays into all of the above. But in some ways, he actually wants the negatupive media reaction. Even bad attention is attention!
-
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
He's a rerun of Herman Cain.
-
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
He's a rerun of Herman Cain.
Even Cain polled better against Obama than Trump is polling against Clinton. It's crazy!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_cain_vs_obama-2003.html
-
I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.
Regarding the elections:
1. We should have ranked voting primaries with out required allegiance to some political party (allegiance requirement varies by state, and has been contested in court back and forth here in WA over the years. It's bullshit).
2. The American populace tends to elect or discard candidates based on things that have little to do with their fitness or competency for office. We run our elections like reality TV and then put the winner in a position with real power and consequences. Can you even imagine the international shitshow that what would ensue if somebody like Trump had to negotiate ANYTHING with Russia, China, or any of our European allies?
3. The two party system does not serve us, as voters, well. It is ripe for manipulation and limits our options. Years in which there were 3 candidates (gasp!) were considered disasters because the competition somehow allowed the election to be "stolen". I have not always liked the outcomes of those elections, but I thought they were more interesting and appropriate than the standard party-line hold your nose and vote scenario.
4. Vote by mail should be an easy/standard option in all voting districts, nationwide. Our country has too long a history of voter disenfranchisement via voting during specific hours on work days at specified locations that may not have adequate facilities.
Everyone knows that political parties suck,
and if we sent votes in by mail can you imagine how much corrupt bullshit fake votes could happen? Probably slightly more than already does
-
G-Dog, Yes he definitely is playing the politics game just by the fact that he is a candidate and is campaigning. However he is not playing it the same way all the other candidates are. To me it comes down to him stating his positions directly (typically in terms not considered PC) rather than using word play to disguise his position.
All that said, I do know that I will not vote for him because I do not believe he would make a good President.
-
I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.
Regarding the elections:
1. We should have ranked voting primaries with out required allegiance to some political party (allegiance requirement varies by state, and has been contested in court back and forth here in WA over the years. It's bullshit).
2. The American populace tends to elect or discard candidates based on things that have little to do with their fitness or competency for office. We run our elections like reality TV and then put the winner in a position with real power and consequences. Can you even imagine the international shitshow that what would ensue if somebody like Trump had to negotiate ANYTHING with Russia, China, or any of our European allies?
3. The two party system does not serve us, as voters, well. It is ripe for manipulation and limits our options. Years in which there were 3 candidates (gasp!) were considered disasters because the competition somehow allowed the election to be "stolen". I have not always liked the outcomes of those elections, but I thought they were more interesting and appropriate than the standard party-line hold your nose and vote scenario.
4. Vote by mail should be an easy/standard option in all voting districts, nationwide. Our country has too long a history of voter disenfranchisement via voting during specific hours on work days at specified locations that may not have adequate facilities.
Everyone knows that political parties suck,
and if we sent votes in by mail can you imagine how much corrupt bullshit fake votes could happen? Probably slightly more than already does
Oregon doesn't seem to have problems with this, and we have some of the highest voter turnout in the nation. Just sayin =P
-
I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.
Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.
Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though? Is someone stuffing the ballot box? And what about the Democrats? Is that the best they could come up with? Where are the freaking Dems? Sanders is an independent for God sake.
The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population. Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.
I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1) The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population
These differences can be attributed to media fuckwads screwing with public opinion. If Bernie Sanders loses the Democrat primary, it will be precisely because the media pervasively indoctrinated the public into believing he couldn't win. Rand Paul is being similarly marginalized. All Scott Walker has done is fuck up his state in every way he possibly could, but he's backed by the people who own the media so he's treated as a contender when by all rights he shouldn't be.
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
He's a rerun of Herman Cain.
Even Cain polled better against Obama than Trump is polling against Clinton. It's crazy!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_cain_vs_obama-2003.html
Herman Cain sucks, but comparing him to Trump is a grievous insult. Trump is easily and by a wide margin the stupidest, most racist, most boorish, least-presidential, ridiculous clown that's ever ran for president as a mainstream candidate in my lifetime.
I admit, it is nice that he's being honest with his positions -- it's just too bad his positions are mostly disgusting and reprehensible.
Anyway, I'm mostly disgusted with what passes for "presidential material" this year: All the republicans are either corrupt, bigots, pandering to authoritarian theocrats (or authoritarian theocrats themslves!), or all of the above. Hillary is also corrupt and has no goddamn principles -- she's Obama 2.0 (and that's not even slightly a compliment). Even fucking Bill had more integrity than she does!
Sanders is the only candidate who isn't a comprehensive disgrace and disaster, but of course he "can't win" because the corrupt, 1%-owned media has pre-ordained it.
-
Oregon doesn't seem to have problems with this, and we have some of the highest voter turnout in the nation. Just sayin =P
Ditto for Washington. We've been 100% voting by mail since 2011, and about 90% before that.
Turn out rates are higher. Costs are lower. And the world has not ended.
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
-
Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.
Fascist? Really?? Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:
(http://www.myinterestingfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Benito-Mussolini-Italy.jpg)
-
Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.
Fascist? Really?? Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:
(http://www.myinterestingfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Benito-Mussolini-Italy.jpg)
there's different definitions of facism, check out this one
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
Thanks for that --- I just looked it up. I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes. This just looks like the flat tax again. Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.
I absolutely hate that. The problem with our tax code isn't that it is complicated or onerous on the rich and well paid, it is that we have a federal tax at all. If states want to enact taxes for welfare, health, education, armies etc. that is fine. The feds have very little business in the tax game other than transportation and border security.
The best tax plan is to reduce federal spending by 3% per year for the next 20 years.
I'm very disappointed with Paul's idea. He is obviously just grasping at straws now.
-
I'm currently pulling for Rand Paul. I find his tax plan very mustachian friendly for the nation. Throw that IRS tax monster in the woodchipper... Though the chainsaw would be fun too. (referencing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34)
-
Incomes up to $50k would be income tax exempt, so most of those 50% still wouldn't pay aside from the sales tax aspect. They would have more income from the get-go as it wouldn't likely be leeched out at payroll time.
-
Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.
Fascist? Really?? Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:
[see above]
there's different definitions of facism, check out this one
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
Fascism is also a term that's so negatively charged that it's almost impossible to label someone as a fascist without the historical baggage of Italy in WWII.
Also, I fail to see how either Jeb or Hilary fit the definition you provided - no more so at least than a wide swath of elected officials over the last 10+ years.
-
I wasn't sure about this, he said families of 4+ making under 50k would be tax exempt so I'm not entirely sure what that means, he also said he's getting rid of the standard deduction, but it sounds like maybe there will be a bigger exemption. I'd like to see a more detailed description of it but don't have time to look for it or go over it. I consider myself republican in most aspects but I do think that I like the idea of a progressive tax code, since I plan on retiring with a net worth of only around 500k, the Standard Deduction will be my friend(The other non-republic issue being that I support gay marriage, but that has been solved so no longer will it affect my votes).
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
Thanks for that --- I just looked it up. I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes. This just looks like the flat tax again. Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.
Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy. It's not remotely close to reality. Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it. Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes. There's a huge difference. Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?
-
I'm currently pulling for Rand Paul. I find his tax plan very mustashian friendly for the nation. Throw that IRS tax monster in the woodchipper... Though the chainsaw would be fun too. (referencing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34)
These kind of goofy stunts are irritating. Shooting bills, burning them, chain saws, etc. Come on and let's be adults.
Paul's plan would be a giant tax cut for the rich and otherwise very high income. That's the point of it. They would go from ~40% to 14.5%. It would do that by raising taxes on many in the middle class. And it would increase the deficit. It also creates a new VAT, so it shifts the tax burden further onto the lower income people because they use a higher percent of their income for necessary goods and services.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/rand-paul-s-implausible-flat-tax
I'd be very happy to strip out a lot of the tax code. But you can do that and still keep the progressive tax structure we have now.
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
Thanks for that --- I just looked it up. I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes. This just looks like the flat tax again. Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.
Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy. It's not remotely close to reality. Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it. Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes. There's a huge difference. Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?
SS, MC, property, sales, etc.
-
I'm currently pulling for Rand Paul. I find his tax plan very mustashian friendly for the nation. Throw that IRS tax monster in the woodchipper... Though the chainsaw would be fun too. (referencing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtglptO4v34)
These kind of goofy stunts are irritating. Shooting bills, burning them, chain saws, etc. Come on and let's be adults.
I know it's just a political stunt, but my first reaction to seeing that was "god, that's such an enormous waste of paper! And it's paper with OBAs!"
Paul's plan would be a giant tax cut for the rich and otherwise very high income. That's the point of it. They would go from ~40% to 14.5%. It would do that by raising taxes on many in the middle class. And it would increase the deficit. It also creates a new VAT, so it shifts the tax burden further onto the lower income people because they use a higher percent of their income for necessary goods and services.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/rand-paul-s-implausible-flat-tax
I'd be very happy to strip out a lot of the tax code. But you can do that and still keep the progressive tax structure we have now.
I also want a drastically simplified tax code that remains progressive.
I also wish that people would understand the tax code is the domain of congress... of course this is exactly why it's 70,000 pages long and has so many exemptions, loop-holes, etc.
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
Thanks for that --- I just looked it up. I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes. This just looks like the flat tax again. Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.
Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy. It's not remotely close to reality. Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it. Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes. There's a huge difference. Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?
Eric, We are talking about federal income taxes here --- not state, property, city, inflation etc.. "Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it." (Eric, you may have misspoken or want to restate that --- It seems a little detached from reality as it reads with regard to federal income tax?)
I may not have read the details as to who he would exempt from the taxes he proposes. My disenchantment was not with his shell game on taxes it was that he didn't make a clear proposal to reduce federal income taxes.
And just so you understand --- look around --- not everyone is paying federal income taxes or even a net negative tax. Most all children under 16 pay no tax and receive no refund. All of my low income clients neither file tax returns nor pay taxes, nor receive refunds. That holds true for 10s of millions.
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) . One of my daughters for instance received $5K in negative taxes last year. Pretty sweet for her.
Lastly, the President has very little to say about the tax code. That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
Thanks for that --- I just looked it up. I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes. This just looks like the flat tax again. Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.
Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy. It's not remotely close to reality. Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it. Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes. There's a huge difference. Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?
Eric, We are talking about federal income taxes here --- not state, property, city, inflation etc.. "Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it." (Eric, you may have misspoken or want to restate that --- It seems a little detached from reality as it reads with regard to federal income tax?)
I may not have read the details as to who he would exempt from the taxes he proposes. My disenchantment was not with his shell game on taxes it was that he didn't make a clear proposal to reduce federal income taxes.
And just so you understand --- look around --- not everyone is paying federal income taxes or even a net negative tax. Most all children under 16 pay no tax and receive no refund. All of my low income clients neither file tax returns nor pay taxes, nor receive refunds. That holds true for 10s of millions.
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) . One of my daughters for instance received $5K in negative taxes last year. Pretty sweet for her.
Lastly, the President has very little to say about the tax code. That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.
Rand Paul is in the senate and if he becomes president he will have more say than a majority of congressional members on this subject, however I'm fairly certain we will always have a progressive tax code.
-
Lastly, the President has very little to say about the tax code. That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.
This. We don't always see eye to eye on things Bob W., but it makes me happy when we do!
-
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .
Please provide support for this, or clarify what you mean. My understanding is that much of the southern republican base also falls in this category, for example. At a state-average level, this certainly seems to be the case:
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/
-
Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.
Fascist? Really?? Seems too far to me...
here's a fascist:
[pic of Mussolini]
By fascist I'm referring to authoritarian corporatism. Clinton and Bush (and most of the rest of the candidates) may not be as extreme as Mussolini, but they really don't differ that much in ideology. It's merely a difference of degree, not kind.
Also, I fail to see how either Jeb or Hilary fit the definition you provided - no more so at least than a wide swath of elected officials over the last 10+ years.
That's the thing: a wide swath of elected officials over the last 10+ years are fascist, and America is now a fascist state. That's how things like the PATRIOT Act, Kelo v. New London and Citizens United were allowed to happen. That's why the Trans-Pacific Partnership will become law, despite the fact that it's objectively terrible for just about everybody but multinational corporations. That's why we're engaged in almost what amounts to a pogrom against black people, and why Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
-
Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?
-
Weird, since I've made the comment about Rand Paul getting a lot of votes over night, he has gotten no votes since then, do Rand Paul supporters only come out at night?
-
Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?
What other context do you need?
The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills. They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic. Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more. What would make it any more clear for you?
-
Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?
What other context do you need?
The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills. They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic. Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more. What would make it any more clear for you?
It would be a better analogy if Trump wanted them all rounded up and taken to an area on the other side of a big fence...
-
Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?
What other context do you need?
The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills. They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic. Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more. What would make it any more clear for you?
It would be a better analogy if Trump wanted them all rounded up and taken to an area on the other side of a big fence...
Hahahahahaha!
-
Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?
What other context do you need?
The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills. They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic. Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more. What would make it any more clear for you?
It would be a better analogy if Trump wanted them all rounded up and taken to an area on the other side of a big fence...
Hahahahaha. <snort>
Good one!
-
I am perplexed by the number of people who mix right wingers with Bernie Sanders in their ranking lists. Looking at it from a political issues stance, this seems like cognitive dissonance, no? I honestly don't understand unless they somehow think that Christie or Paul, etc are aligned with Sanders along some sort of imaginary political revolution spectrum. Please help me understand that.
Paul is right-libertarian (sort of, at least) and Bernie Sanders is left-libertarian (yes, even despite his pandering to anti-gun nuts). What they have in common is that they're both much less fascist than "mainstream" candidates like Clinton II or Bush III.
Totally perplexed by the Bernie and Hillary votes though? Is someone stuffing the ballot box? And what about the Democrats? Is that the best they could come up with? Where are the freaking Dems? Sanders is an independent for God sake.
The overall R/D split is pretty close to that of the general population. Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination, remember.
I'm finding it interesting the differences between these results and the general population:
1) The Republicans most likely to win the nomination are polling well below the general population (Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio)
2) Rand Paul is about ~5-10 times more popular on this forum than in the general population
3) Sanders is similarly ~5 times more popular on this forum (relatively to Clinton) than in the general population
These differences can be attributed to media fuckwads screwing with public opinion. If Bernie Sanders loses the Democrat primary, it will be precisely because the media pervasively indoctrinated the public into believing he couldn't win. Rand Paul is being similarly marginalized. All Scott Walker has done is fuck up his state in every way he possibly could, but he's backed by the people who own the media so he's treated as a contender when by all rights he shouldn't be.
I've never seen a candidate leading one party's polls so overwhelmingly unlikely to win the general election. Trump is, right now, the top choice of Republican primary voters – but more Republicans would vote against him in a general election than any of the other candidates. Fun stuff
He's a rerun of Herman Cain.
Even Cain polled better against Obama than Trump is polling against Clinton. It's crazy!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_cain_vs_obama-2003.html
Herman Cain sucks, but comparing him to Trump is a grievous insult. Trump is easily and by a wide margin the stupidest, most racist, most boorish, least-presidential, ridiculous clown that's ever ran for president as a mainstream candidate in my lifetime.
I admit, it is nice that he's being honest with his positions -- it's just too bad his positions are mostly disgusting and reprehensible.
Anyway, I'm mostly disgusted with what passes for "presidential material" this year: All the republicans are either corrupt, bigots, pandering to authoritarian theocrats (or authoritarian theocrats themslves!), or all of the above. Hillary is also corrupt and has no goddamn principles -- she's Obama 2.0 (and that's not even slightly a compliment). Even fucking Bill had more integrity than she does!
Sanders is the only candidate who isn't a comprehensive disgrace and disaster, but of course he "can't win" because the corrupt, 1%-owned media has pre-ordained it.
Trumps positions are racist and reprehensible, and THAT is what resonates with this particular set of voters. It's the Southern Strategy, without all the cover up and mis-direction. Trump isn't making this stuff up, he's tapping into a well spring of support for these ideas that already exists. If Trump is disgusting, at least he allows us to see clearly that a very large swath of the republican base agrees with him and embraces him. I used to be a pretty staunch republican but left the party when it became clear how much this particular (white southern) group is pandered to. So I'm voting democrat now. And I'll continue to vote democrat until the GOP stop acting like a bunch of racist @ssholes.
-
What does everyone think about Rand Pauls tax plan
Thanks for that --- I just looked it up. I was expecting something exciting like maybe reducing taxes. This just looks like the flat tax again. Pretty much would bring the 50+ percent of people who don't pay taxes into paying taxes.
Bob, you usually post some pretty crazy shit that I can ignore, but this is beyond crazy. It's not remotely close to reality. Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it. Not every person pays a net positive amount of federal income taxes. There's a huge difference. Certainly even someone who would complain that students, military personnel, and retirees aren't pulling their weight can grasp the difference, right?
Eric, We are talking about federal income taxes here --- not state, property, city, inflation etc.. "Every single person pays taxes. It's not like there's a way to avoid it." (Eric, you may have misspoken or want to restate that --- It seems a little detached from reality as it reads with regard to federal income tax?)
I may not have read the details as to who he would exempt from the taxes he proposes. My disenchantment was not with his shell game on taxes it was that he didn't make a clear proposal to reduce federal income taxes.
And just so you understand --- look around --- not everyone is paying federal income taxes or even a net negative tax. Most all children under 16 pay no tax and receive no refund. All of my low income clients neither file tax returns nor pay taxes, nor receive refunds. That holds true for 10s of millions.
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) . One of my daughters for instance received $5K in negative taxes last year. Pretty sweet for her.
Lastly, the President has very little to say about the tax code. That is primarily the congressional bailiwick.
Bob, I make $120k per year and I vote democrat, so I think your a bit off in your view of the democratic base.
Also, you live in Missouri which seems to be a pretty unhappy place. I can see why you are so angry and frustrated. Maybe move to a more progressive state? I moved from Texas to Colorado (Denver, specifically) and we are MUCH happier here. It's just a nicer place to live, all around.
-
After minimal research, I'd like to change my answer from Sanders to Jeb Bush. August 8th this very well may change at the first GOP debate.
-
Republican presidential candidates can use the same kind of rhetoric against Hispanic immigrants that used to be used against Jews without instantly disqualifying themselves from the race.
Other than Trumps comments regarding illegal immigrants being criminals (paraphrasing), what are you referring to?
What other context do you need?
The analogy being made was that Jews used to be villainized as the cause of all of society's ills. They were portrayed as shifty, dishonest, conniving, and sometimes borderline demonic. Trump is saying that hispanic immigrants are "criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." I see pretty clear parallel, but you seem to be asking for something more. What would make it any more clear for you?
He says candidates (plural). Who besides trump? Calling for border enforcement is not demonizing a group. Trump went much further. Cruz is Hispanic. Bush is married to a Hispanic. Who is the op referring to other than trump? Trump is one candidate.
-
Trumps positions are racist and reprehensible, and THAT is what resonates with this particular set of voters. It's the Southern Strategy, without all the cover up and mis-direction. Trump isn't making this stuff up, he's tapping into a well spring of support for these ideas that already exists. If Trump is disgusting, at least he allows us to see clearly that a very large swath of the republican base agrees with him and embraces him. I used to be a pretty staunch republican but left the party when it became clear how much this particular (white southern) group is pandered to. So I'm voting democrat now. And I'll continue to vote democrat until the GOP stop acting like a bunch of racist @ssholes.
<---- Note the location. I am well aware.
(I must also point out that not all white southerners are like that, especially not urban ones.)
He says candidates (plural). Who besides trump? Calling for border enforcement is not demonizing a group. Trump went much further. Cruz is Hispanic. Bush is married to a Hispanic. Who is the op referring to other than trump? Trump is one candidate.
Trump is hardly the first candidate to use the Southern Strategy; he's just remarkably unsubtle about it. For example, see this article (http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/5-signs-scott-walker-using-gops-racist-southern-strategy-win-2016) about Scott Walker. If you can't see anything wrong with the other candidates' coded racism then you're either ignorant or a racist too. (Also, just because a candidate might be of a certain minority, doesn't mean he can't be bigoted about other groups, such as women, homosexuals or non-Christians.)
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
There's a small possibility of Trump becoming GOPs presidential candidate, but 0% chance of him becoming president. You don't need votes from average Americans, you need votes from electors in the electoral college.
-
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .
I don't even know where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that people who receive government benefits because they are poor must therefore be Democrats, because all Republicans virtuously hate government? Dude, let me assure you that poor Republicans with no earned income are not taking their Medicaid and SNAP benefits and returning them to the government out of ideological purity. WTF?
-
One good thing that could come if Hillary Clinton became president, Bill would be the first lady LOL. I was a lot younger when Bill was president and thought he was a cool dude, always gettin into wacky "shenanigans" although that's probably not what you want from a president, part of me still would like to see Bill back in the white house just for a good laugh. Although, I'm still thinking Jeb Bush seems to be the best choice for me right now, and if not him, probably whoever the GOP presidential candidate is.
-
One good thing that could come if Hillary Clinton became president, Bill would be the first lady LOL. I was a lot younger when Bill was president and thought he was a cool dude, always gettin into wacky "shenanigans" although that's probably not what you want from a president, part of me still would like to see Bill back in the white house just for a good laugh. Although, I'm still thinking Jeb Bush seems to be the best choice for me right now, and if not him, probably whoever the GOP presidential candidate is.
While some of his more recent statements have softened, I have a very hard supporting Jeb or any other candidate who won't state publicly that they believe climate change is real and that human activity is overwhelmingly responsible. These "I'm not a scientist" and "there's not a consensus amount scientists" lines are beyond ridiculous in 2015.
You don't need votes from average Americans, you need votes from electors in the electoral college.
technically true, but in almost all states the members of the electoral college are selected by the political party who wins the popular vote in that state. Are you suggesting that the Republicans might win the popular vote but select electoral members who would vote for someone else? I can't imagine the outcry that would ensue - "Trump wins popular vote in majority of states, Jeb Bush selected as president" Really?? Not happening.
-
For example, see this article (http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/5-signs-scott-walker-using-gops-racist-southern-strategy-win-2016) about Scott Walker.
That article was chock-full of strawmen and conclusions drawn so thinly they should be considered anorexic. Walker is against unions because they're primarily black? He isn't supportive of Milwaukee which is just barely black/Latino over white (57%/43%)? Come on. You can disagree with his policies, especially the anti-union stuff which is polarizing, but don't pretend it's because he's a closet racist.
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak. If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name.
Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak. If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name.
Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.
I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge. There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now? I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse.
Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak. If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name.
Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.
I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge. There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now? I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse.
Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak. If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name.
Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.
I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge. There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now? I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse.
Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
I generally like Christie, but yeah, his stance on guns and now his stance on pot are just stupid. And bridgegate was juvenile and idiotic.
-
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.
-
Trump is hardly the first candidate to use the Southern Strategy; he's just remarkably unsubtle about it. For example, see this article (http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/5-signs-scott-walker-using-gops-racist-southern-strategy-win-2016) about Scott Walker. If you can't see anything wrong with the other candidates' coded racism then you're either ignorant or a racist too. (Also, just because a candidate might be of a certain minority, doesn't mean he can't be bigoted about other groups, such as women, homosexuals or non-Christians.)
The Southern Strategy has been popular since Nixon. LBJ lost the racists in the South due to the Civil Rights Act, so they turned into Republicans. It's a really common Republican tactic. Reagan gave a "states rights" speech while running for president in the same area where very notable civil rights activists were murdered. George HW Bush employed similar tactics with Willie Horton (see his campaign manager's comments below). George W Bush's campaign used similar tactics both in 2000 (like saying McCain had an illegitimate black daughter) and in 2004 (with putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in swing states to bring out the bigot vote). The drug and crime wars have always been incredibly racially oriented and racially prosecuted. Sometimes the "dog whistles" are so loud that humans can hear them. The phrases now are "entitlement reform" and "cut taxes" and "the 47%" and "the takers", etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states%27_rights%22_speech
There's more info on Lee Atwater's (George H.W. Bush's campaign manager and Strom Thurmond's campaign manager) interview where he said this:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy#
-
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.
My opinion of Clinton continues to drop so I'll avoid her. At least Bernie Sanders is honest about what he is.
If Jeb Bush is similar to his brother, I'd prefer someone else. I'm waiting for the debates on him, but that's my initial take.
-
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.
My opinion of Clinton continues to drop so I'll avoid her. At least Bernie Sanders is honest about what he is.
If Jeb Bush is similar to his brother, I'd prefer someone else. I'm waiting for the debates on him, but that's my initial take.
Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.
-
One good thing that could come if Hillary Clinton became president, Bill would be the first lady LOL. I was a lot younger when Bill was president and thought he was a cool dude, always gettin into wacky "shenanigans" although that's probably not what you want from a president, part of me still would like to see Bill back in the white house just for a good laugh. Although, I'm still thinking Jeb Bush seems to be the best choice for me right now, and if not him, probably whoever the GOP presidential candidate is.
While some of his more recent statements have softened, I have a very hard supporting Jeb or any other candidate who won't state publicly that they believe climate change is real and that human activity is overwhelmingly responsible. These "I'm not a scientist" and "there's not a consensus amount scientists" lines are beyond ridiculous in 2015.
You don't need votes from average Americans, you need votes from electors in the electoral college.
technically true, but in almost all states the members of the electoral college are selected by the political party who wins the popular vote in that state. Are you suggesting that the Republicans might win the popular vote but select electoral members who would vote for someone else? I can't imagine the outcry that would ensue - "Trump wins popular vote in majority of states, Jeb Bush selected as president" Really?? Not happening.
I don't know a whole lot about Jeb Bush and didn't know he didn't believe in climate change. I definitely think we need to start becoming greener and would prefer a president who didn't veto bills that would help with that. Hopefully I'll learn more about all of the candidates on the 8th.
-
Trump is one candidate.
To be clear, he is currently the leading and most popular candidate of the Republican Party.
But I think I understand. You're saying the the party isn't using this kind of racially charged dog whistle rhetoric, just their leading candidate. You're defending the GOP from the GOP frontrunner?
If you are going to refer to candidates (plural), its helpful if plural candidates are involved in the action of which you speak. If Trump is the candidate you take issue with, refer to him by name.
Regarding Trump being the leading candidate, he's in the low 20's. That means 70-80% of Repub's like someone else.
I like to think my fellow GOPers are also "supportive" of Trump because A) he's a sideshow and B) we're all just waiting for a/the serious candidate to emerge. There are what, 16-18 candidates in the field right now? I think most of us are just waiting for the field to thin out before choosing our horse.
Or maybe I'm wrong and all the other Repubs are idiots, I dunno.
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
Agree with you about Christie, Midwest. I also don't want another Bush or Clinton. If that's going to be the choice, add me to the list of people voting for Gary Johnson if he runs again.
If I were completely going to vote in pure self-interest with regard to my career, Bush would be my best bet. However, I cannot forgive him for the Terri Schiavo debacle.
-
Trump is hardly the first candidate to use the Southern Strategy; he's just remarkably unsubtle about it. For example, see this article (http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/5-signs-scott-walker-using-gops-racist-southern-strategy-win-2016) about Scott Walker. If you can't see anything wrong with the other candidates' coded racism then you're either ignorant or a racist too. (Also, just because a candidate might be of a certain minority, doesn't mean he can't be bigoted about other groups, such as women, homosexuals or non-Christians.)
The Southern Strategy has been popular since Nixon. LBJ lost the racists in the South due to the Civil Rights Act, so they turned into Republicans. It's a really common Republican tactic. Reagan gave a "states rights" speech while running for president in the same area where very notable civil rights activists were murdered. George HW Bush employed similar tactics with Willie Horton (see his campaign manager's comments below). George W Bush's campaign used similar tactics both in 2000 (like saying McCain had an illegitimate black daughter) and in 2004 (with putting gay marriage bans on the ballot in swing states to bring out the bigot vote). The drug and crime wars have always been incredibly racially oriented and racially prosecuted. Sometimes the "dog whistles" are so loud that humans can hear them. The phrases now are "entitlement reform" and "cut taxes" and "the 47%" and "the takers", etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan%27s_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states%27_rights%22_speech
There's more info on Lee Atwater's (George H.W. Bush's campaign manager and Strom Thurmond's campaign manager) interview where he said this:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy#
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots too?
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots too?
Yes, with respect to this issue. I was too for a long time.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
or... maybe their views evolved along with the rest of the country. You've labeled the republicans (and only the republicans) bigots for something that happened 10+ years ago when many on the dem side agreed with their position (even if just publicly).
For the record, I voted against our state ban on gay marriage 10+ years ago. The prohibition on civil unions bothered me even then.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
-
I don't know a whole lot about Jeb Bush and didn't know he didn't believe in climate change. I definitely think we need to start becoming greener and would prefer a president who didn't veto bills that would help with that. Hopefully I'll learn more about all of the candidates on the 8th.
A few of his previous stances: "It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade." 2011 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/jeb-bush-rick-perry-global-warming_n_935168.html) on fox news.
more (May 2015) recently he seems to have accepted at least the possibility that the climate is changing (http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/politics/jeb-bush-climate-change/), but continues to toe the line about whether we are responsible: "the climate is changing... I don't think the science is clear of what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. It's convoluted... For the people to say the science is decided on this is really arrogant, to be honest with you."
Then he criticized the pope for saying that global warming is a moral issue (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/21/3440075/pope-francis-if-we-destroy-creation-creation-will-destroy-us/) and that will impact the poor most of all. Jeb's criticism (http://time.com/3924287/pope-francis-climate-change/) (as I understand it) seems to be based on the idea that climate change is too political, and the pope should not be involved in anything political. Nevermind that he has frequently mentioned his faith as a guiding principle for his politics.
As someone who works directly with climate change this is very important to me. If Jeb (or any other GOP) were to stand up and say "yes climate change is real, yes humanity has played a large part in it, and yes we need to address it" I'd be much more inclined to vote for them. As it is, the frontrunners of this 127 candidate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/so-who-is-a-real-gop-candidate/) field are (IMO) completely on the wrong side of this issue.
-
If you really want to know where candidates stand on an issue, I think it makes a whole lot more sense to look at how they have voted on issues and what they have said about issues over a sustained period of time, than it does to put much stock in how they perform in a debate. That might be part of the picture, but it's a relatively small part.
-
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .
I don't even know where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that people who receive government benefits because they are poor must therefore be Democrats, because all Republicans virtuously hate government? Dude, let me assure you that poor Republicans with no earned income are not taking their Medicaid and SNAP benefits and returning them to the government out of ideological purity. WTF?
The difference is that poor Republicans who receive government benefits are all good, god-fearing, virtuous souls who are really hard workers and are just down on their luck, not like those filthy Democrats in the cities who all live on handouts and have no interest in bettering themselves while they pump out children for the welfare check.
(I feel I should explicitly point out at this point that I'm being sarcastic.)
-
If Jeb (or any other GOP) were to stand up and say "yes climate change is real, yes humanity has played a large part in it, and yes we need to address it" I'd be much more inclined to vote for them.
Or, you know, you could vote for a Democratic candidate. They all seem to be on the right side of this particular issue.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
-
I like Bernie. Income inequality and corporate influence on politics are big problems. He's probably a little too extreme to win or get everything he wants done even if he does win, but at least he stands for something other than whatever will get him the most donations.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
How can you imagine that that sentence was emitting glowing praise for Obama? I don't get that.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
I just have to say, my very least favorite form of political "debate" takes the form of silly labels that are meant to reduce a candidate to one (usually erroneous) simplistic facet.
Well, maybe that's tied with the ridiculously persistent third-grade level name calling, e.g. "Obummer".
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
or... maybe their views evolved along with the rest of the country.
It was political calculation. When Obama was running for Illinois Senate in 1996 he said "I support same-sex marriage". And the whole "my views are evolving" BS was clearly signaling that his position was about to change when he felt it was politically expedient. But what he felt inside doesn't matter--his public actions (which were wrong for a long time) are what counts.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
How can you imagine that that sentence was emitting glowing praise for Obama? I don't get that.
??? I said I couldn't tell if it was defending or condemning him, not defending, condemning, or worshipping.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
Yes, political wind testing. It's a shame, but all politicians do it. Like George HW Bush is pro-choice in his beliefs, but has decided to hide his true feelings for political expediency. And Scott DesJarlais is pro-choice (at least when it comes to him and the abortions he's made his mistresses and wife get) but is pro-life in his voting and public record.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
Yes, political wind testing. It's a shame, but all politicians do it. Like George HW Bush is pro-choice in his beliefs, but has decided to hide his true feelings for political expediency. And Scott DesJarlais is pro-choice (at least when it comes to him and the abortions he's made his mistresses and wife get) but is pro-life in his voting and public record.
Or every single Republican candidate on climate change. I do not for one second believe that they all think it's a hoax. But none of them has the guts to say it out loud. Even Jeb sort-of says it maybe-sorta-yeah-humans-maybe-have-something-to-do-with-it, but golly, that doesn't mean we should actually take action.
-
If Jeb (or any other GOP) were to stand up and say "yes climate change is real, yes humanity has played a large part in it, and yes we need to address it" I'd be much more inclined to vote for them.
Or, you know, you could vote for a Democratic candidate. They all seem to be on the right side of this particular issue.
I thought that was a conclusion too obvious to state.
-
I like Bernie. Income inequality and corporate influence on politics are big problems. He's probably a little too extreme to win or get everything he wants done even if he does win, but at least he stands for something other than whatever will get him the most donations.
I really fail to see how he can be considered extreme, when none of what he says is remotely new to the history of our country, aside from Healthcare. He is basically an older, frailer, Jewish version of Teddy Roosevelt.
They Both called for:
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
Teddy was always my favorite president anyway, so given the similarities in their platforms above, I am all for Sanders in 2016.
-
And then there are the net negative tax payers (otherwise known as the Democratic base) .
I don't even know where you're going with this. Are you suggesting that people who receive government benefits because they are poor must therefore be Democrats, because all Republicans virtuously hate government? Dude, let me assure you that poor Republicans with no earned income are not taking their Medicaid and SNAP benefits and returning them to the government out of ideological purity. WTF?
The difference is that poor Republicans who receive government benefits are all good, god-fearing, virtuous souls who are really hard workers and are just down on their luck, not like those filthy Democrats in the cities who all live on handouts and have no interest in bettering themselves while they pump out children for the welfare check.
(I feel I should explicitly point out at this point that I'm being sarcastic.)
Well, sarcasm or not, this IS how the republicans view the situation. Handouts to rural (republicans) are just a temporary thing for people that are "down on their luck", and the city folk (democrats) are hardcore long term moochers.
Taking handouts is bad, but IOKIYAR (It's OK If You Are A Republican).
-
I like Bernie. Income inequality and corporate influence on politics are big problems. He's probably a little too extreme to win or get everything he wants done even if he does win, but at least he stands for something other than whatever will get him the most donations.
I really fail to see how he can be considered extreme, when none of what he says is remotely new to the history of our country, aside from Healthcare. He is basically an older, frailer, Jewish version of Teddy Roosevelt.
They Both called for:
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
Teddy was always my favorite president anyway, so given the similarities in their platforms above, I am all for Sanders in 2016.
I hadn't thought about this comparison. You could also say that they both were against corporations that had huge negative social externalities due to their size (Teddy was a trust buster and Bernie wants to break up banks that are "too big to fail" so we don't have to bail out ones that do fail). They are both in favor of protecting the environment (Teddy was "the conservation president"). They were both in favor of allowing hunting.
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
Yes, political wind testing. It's a shame, but all politicians do it. Like George HW Bush is pro-choice in his beliefs, but has decided to hide his true feelings for political expediency. And Scott DesJarlais is pro-choice (at least when it comes to him and the abortions he's made his mistresses and wife get) but is pro-life in his voting and public record.
Or every single Republican candidate on climate change. I do not for one second believe that they all think it's a hoax. But none of them has the guts to say it out loud. Even Jeb sort-of says it maybe-sorta-yeah-humans-maybe-have-something-to-do-with-it, but golly, that doesn't mean we should actually take action.
I think there's a few things going on here.
Number one, once you acknowledge the issue, you have to take the next step towards the solution, and the solutions are super-politicized. I actually find it pretty funny in some cases. For instance, if you hate pollution, one thing you can push is electric vehicles (assuming you're also pushing for clean power). Okay, great. Well, like any bleeding-edge technology, it's expensive. Even a cheap electric car like a Leaf is a $20k+ product. And then you need to incentivize the purchase, well, you do that with a tax credit. However, now you've put yourself in a spot where you're giving tax credits to people who can afford $20k-$100k+ purchases, or "the rich". Which makes the liberal head spin, which do we hate more, tax credits for rich people or pollution?? CA has started rolling back tax credits for "rich people" which is going to have an adverse affect on EV ownership. The whole thing is silly.
And then you get to things like CAFE. Everyone "knows" that you can't raise the gas tax, because that would A) hurt poor people and B) be very unpolular politically. Okay. So what do we do? I know, make the kinds of vehicles that burn lots of gas more expensive! The problem is, that doesn't necessarily drive down fuel usage, because once you make that initial purchase, you can burn as much fuel as you like. It's like trying to fix obesity by making forks more expensive. It doesn't really work.
I also think there's a distinct failure in government to be able to execute a good cost/benefit study and then act on it. For instance, if you set a target that a power plant must be 99.99% clean, maybe it costs $100 to get it to 99.95% clean, and $1M to get it from 99.95% to 99.99%. Everyone can agree to spend the $100, but I don't trust government to know enough to stop there. Under the "solve global warming at all costs" banner, I don't trust them.
So basically, from my perspective, if you let the nose of the GW camel into the tent, you've opened the door up to some incredibly poor policy decisions. Hell, look at CAFE. You know what caused the explosion of SUVs? CAFE. Why? Because congress can't get out of its own way to predict 2nd order effects. "Oh, hey, people buy lots of cars, and trucks are used for work. Trucks are defined as having traits A, B, and C. We'll make cars have to have much better mileage, but trucks less so." Well any idiot can predict that carmakers would just make cars with attributes A, B, and C and classify them as trucks and Americans would buy them in droves so they're cheaper, but Congress isn't just any idiot because they either couldn't, or didn't care.
And then don't get me started on other initiatives like Cap and Trade and GW credits and such, which are basically just a giant scam.
So it's a completely imperfect and slightly ridiculous stance to take, that GW is not happening, but I think it's really just a defense against having to compromise on garbage policy. I also think the left/GW is happening crowd is suffering from a lot of hysteria inflation. I've seen lots of articles lately on "GW is already happening it's probably too late!!! but we must do something anyways" that just becomes a laughable message. Couple that with climate scientists' habit of making definitive pronouncements that turn out to be false or crap science, and you open the door to a lot of skepticism.
Anyways, just some rambling on the subject.
-
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.
My opinion of Clinton continues to drop so I'll avoid her. At least Bernie Sanders is honest about what he is.
If Jeb Bush is similar to his brother, I'd prefer someone else. I'm waiting for the debates on him, but that's my initial take.
Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.
Why would that matter? It's not like he's picking up any (R) votes anyway, since he's a dreaded socialist! Do you think there are a lot of swing voters who own AR-15s or love gun violence?
-
I hope Christie is eliminated soon. The comment about pot last week was moronic.
Not sure what I'll do if it's Bush. Really don't want another Bush or Clinton.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Is it fair (or even sensible) to not vote for someone just because their husband or brother was president?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of political dynasties, but would not avoid voting for someone just because of their family name.
My opinion of Clinton continues to drop so I'll avoid her. At least Bernie Sanders is honest about what he is.
If Jeb Bush is similar to his brother, I'd prefer someone else. I'm waiting for the debates on him, but that's my initial take.
Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.
Why would that matter? It's not like he's picking up any (R) votes anyway, since he's a dreaded socialist! Do you think there are a lot of swing voters who own AR-15s or love gun violence?
First of all, I find the bolded offensive that you appear to think everyone who wants to preserve the 2A "loves gun violence" and that just tells me you don't want to understand the issue, BUT, it's not just ARs, it's likely pistols as well, and yes, there are plenty of people who are firearms enthusiasts who own pistols and even ARs who may be interested in voting Dem.
-
I'm sorry you're offended by something I didn't say.
-
Or every single Republican candidate on climate change. I do not for one second believe that they all think it's a hoax. But none of them has the guts to say it out loud. Even Jeb sort-of says it maybe-sorta-yeah-humans-maybe-have-something-to-do-with-it, but golly, that doesn't mean we should actually take action.
I think there's a few things going on here.
Number one, once you acknowledge the issue, you have to take the next step towards the solution, and the solutions are super-politicized. I actually find it pretty funny in some cases. For instance, if you hate pollution, one thing you can push is electric vehicles (assuming you're also pushing for clean power). Okay, great. Well, like any bleeding-edge technology, it's expensive. Even a cheap electric car like a Leaf is a $20k+ product. And then you need to incentivize the purchase, well, you do that with a tax credit. However, now you've put yourself in a spot where you're giving tax credits to people who can afford $20k-$100k+ purchases, or "the rich". Which makes the liberal head spin, which do we hate more, tax credits for rich people or pollution?? CA has started rolling back tax credits for "rich people" which is going to have an adverse affect on EV ownership. The whole thing is silly.
And then you get to things like CAFE. Everyone "knows" that you can't raise the gas tax, because that would A) hurt poor people and B) be very unpolular politically. Okay. So what do we do? I know, make the kinds of vehicles that burn lots of gas more expensive! The problem is, that doesn't necessarily drive down fuel usage, because once you make that initial purchase, you can burn as much fuel as you like. It's like trying to fix obesity by making forks more expensive. It doesn't really work.
I also think there's a distinct failure in government to be able to execute a good cost/benefit study and then act on it. For instance, if you set a target that a power plant must be 99.99% clean, maybe it costs $100 to get it to 99.95% clean, and $1M to get it from 99.95% to 99.99%. Everyone can agree to spend the $100, but I don't trust government to know enough to stop there. Under the "solve global warming at all costs" banner, I don't trust them.
So basically, from my perspective, if you let the nose of the GW camel into the tent, you've opened the door up to some incredibly poor policy decisions. Hell, look at CAFE. You know what caused the explosion of SUVs? CAFE. Why? Because congress can't get out of its own way to predict 2nd order effects. "Oh, hey, people buy lots of cars, and trucks are used for work. Trucks are defined as having traits A, B, and C. We'll make cars have to have much better mileage, but trucks less so." Well any idiot can predict that carmakers would just make cars with attributes A, B, and C and classify them as trucks and Americans would buy them in droves so they're cheaper, but Congress isn't just any idiot because they either couldn't, or didn't care.
And then don't get me started on other initiatives like Cap and Trade and GW credits and such, which are basically just a giant scam.
So it's a completely imperfect and slightly ridiculous stance to take, that GW is not happening, but I think it's really just a defense against having to compromise on garbage policy. I also think the left/GW is happening crowd is suffering from a lot of hysteria inflation. I've seen lots of articles lately on "GW is already happening it's probably too late!!! but we must do something anyways" that just becomes a laughable message. Couple that with climate scientists' habit of making definitive pronouncements that turn out to be false or crap science, and you open the door to a lot of skepticism.
Anyways, just some rambling on the subject.
So who politicized all the solutions? Oh right.
All you'd need to do is create a carbon tax, and send a check to every American for the amount of the tax per capita. It would be revenue neutral (minus the postage stamp). No "job killing" or other BS like that. It would provide the proper incentives for people to change their own behavior at the time of their choosing and in the most efficient manner based on price signals. Hey, suddenly owning an electric car is even more inexpensive over the long run without subsidies--we should buy one! Hey, solar energy is cheaper for us to buy than this coal stuff--let's install a ton of those and send the power to our customers! Etc. It's a tax that sunsets itself. It sounds like a very free-market, economically conservative approach to the problem.
The real problem is that all the Republicans get huge amounts of bribes campaign contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industries--industries that would like to continue to make money without paying for the consequences of their actions.
-
I like Bernie. Income inequality and corporate influence on politics are big problems. He's probably a little too extreme to win or get everything he wants done even if he does win, but at least he stands for something other than whatever will get him the most donations.
I really fail to see how he can be considered extreme, when none of what he says is remotely new to the history of our country, aside from Healthcare. He is basically an older, frailer, Jewish version of Teddy Roosevelt.
They Both called for:
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
Teddy was always my favorite president anyway, so given the similarities in their platforms above, I am all for Sanders in 2016.
I hadn't thought about this comparison. You could also say that they both were against corporations that had huge negative social externalities due to their size (Teddy was a trust buster and Bernie wants to break up banks that are "too big to fail" so we don't have to bail out ones that do fail). They are both in favor of protecting the environment (Teddy was "the conservation president"). They were both in favor of allowing hunting.
This^^^
-
I'm sorry you're offended by something I didn't say.
You pretty clearly did, dude.
-
Or every single Republican candidate on climate change. I do not for one second believe that they all think it's a hoax. But none of them has the guts to say it out loud. Even Jeb sort-of says it maybe-sorta-yeah-humans-maybe-have-something-to-do-with-it, but golly, that doesn't mean we should actually take action.
I think there's a few things going on here.
Number one, once you acknowledge the issue, you have to take the next step towards the solution, and the solutions are super-politicized. I actually find it pretty funny in some cases. For instance, if you hate pollution, one thing you can push is electric vehicles (assuming you're also pushing for clean power). Okay, great. Well, like any bleeding-edge technology, it's expensive. Even a cheap electric car like a Leaf is a $20k+ product. And then you need to incentivize the purchase, well, you do that with a tax credit. However, now you've put yourself in a spot where you're giving tax credits to people who can afford $20k-$100k+ purchases, or "the rich". Which makes the liberal head spin, which do we hate more, tax credits for rich people or pollution?? CA has started rolling back tax credits for "rich people" which is going to have an adverse affect on EV ownership. The whole thing is silly.
And then you get to things like CAFE. Everyone "knows" that you can't raise the gas tax, because that would A) hurt poor people and B) be very unpolular politically. Okay. So what do we do? I know, make the kinds of vehicles that burn lots of gas more expensive! The problem is, that doesn't necessarily drive down fuel usage, because once you make that initial purchase, you can burn as much fuel as you like. It's like trying to fix obesity by making forks more expensive. It doesn't really work.
I also think there's a distinct failure in government to be able to execute a good cost/benefit study and then act on it. For instance, if you set a target that a power plant must be 99.99% clean, maybe it costs $100 to get it to 99.95% clean, and $1M to get it from 99.95% to 99.99%. Everyone can agree to spend the $100, but I don't trust government to know enough to stop there. Under the "solve global warming at all costs" banner, I don't trust them.
So basically, from my perspective, if you let the nose of the GW camel into the tent, you've opened the door up to some incredibly poor policy decisions. Hell, look at CAFE. You know what caused the explosion of SUVs? CAFE. Why? Because congress can't get out of its own way to predict 2nd order effects. "Oh, hey, people buy lots of cars, and trucks are used for work. Trucks are defined as having traits A, B, and C. We'll make cars have to have much better mileage, but trucks less so." Well any idiot can predict that carmakers would just make cars with attributes A, B, and C and classify them as trucks and Americans would buy them in droves so they're cheaper, but Congress isn't just any idiot because they either couldn't, or didn't care.
And then don't get me started on other initiatives like Cap and Trade and GW credits and such, which are basically just a giant scam.
So it's a completely imperfect and slightly ridiculous stance to take, that GW is not happening, but I think it's really just a defense against having to compromise on garbage policy. I also think the left/GW is happening crowd is suffering from a lot of hysteria inflation. I've seen lots of articles lately on "GW is already happening it's probably too late!!! but we must do something anyways" that just becomes a laughable message. Couple that with climate scientists' habit of making definitive pronouncements that turn out to be false or crap science, and you open the door to a lot of skepticism.
Anyways, just some rambling on the subject.
So who politicized all the solutions? Oh right.
All you'd need to do is create a carbon tax, and send a check to every American for the amount of the tax per capita. It would be revenue neutral (minus the postage stamp). No "job killing" or other BS like that. It would provide the proper incentives for people to change their own behavior at the time of their choosing and in the most efficient manner based on price signals. Hey, suddenly owning an electric car is even more inexpensive over the long run without subsidies--we should buy one! Hey, solar energy is cheaper for us to buy than this coal stuff--let's install a ton of those and send the power to our customers! Etc. It's a tax that sunsets itself. It sounds like a very free-market, economically conservative approach to the problem.
The real problem is that all the Republicans get huge amounts of bribes campaign contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industries--industries that would like to continue to make money without paying for the consequences of their actions.
Also this^^^
-
If you want a good sampling of this poll, might find a way to show it to more on these forums. Today is the first day I've come to this section of the forum website.
-
I like Bernie. Income inequality and corporate influence on politics are big problems. He's probably a little too extreme to win or get everything he wants done even if he does win, but at least he stands for something other than whatever will get him the most donations.
I really fail to see how he can be considered extreme, when none of what he says is remotely new to the history of our country, aside from Healthcare. He is basically an older, frailer, Jewish version of Teddy Roosevelt.
They Both called for:
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
Teddy was always my favorite president anyway, so given the similarities in their platforms above, I am all for Sanders in 2016.
I hadn't thought about this comparison. You could also say that they both were against corporations that had huge negative social externalities due to their size (Teddy was a trust buster and Bernie wants to break up banks that are "too big to fail" so we don't have to bail out ones that do fail). They are both in favor of protecting the environment (Teddy was "the conservation president"). They were both in favor of allowing hunting.
Didn't know enough to make that comparison, but I'm glad that his views are echoing someone who has been president. Gives me some hope that he can do it. In comparison to recent politicians, he does seem extreme to me.
-
If Bernie were in Europe he would never be considered a socialist. He is pretty much a middle left candidate, but we have been pulled too far right, so he seems extreme.
-
I'm sorry you're offended by something I didn't say.
You pretty clearly did, dude.
I said the three words "love gun violence". You extrapolated that to mean that anyone following the constitution must love gun violence. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, and stated as such. So no, I pretty clearly did not. I support the 2nd amendment. I think citizens should be allowed to own and shoot firearms. I also support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. And so does everyone. Even the NRA isn't out there protesting that felons should be able to buy guns, right? My reasonable restrictions may be different than yours, but we both have them.
My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out. There are certainly non-swing voters that do. I'm not sure how that's even up for debate. If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.
Is that more clear?
-
Not a lot of overlap between those who believe gay marriage is wrong and people will burn in hell for it, and those who believe global warming will create hell on earth, is there?
-
I really fail to see how he can be considered extreme, when none of what he says is remotely new to the history of our country, aside from Healthcare. He is basically an older, frailer, Jewish version of Teddy Roosevelt.
If he gets boxed out of the Democratic nomination, I fervently hope he runs as a Bull Moose.
-
So who politicized all the solutions? Oh right.
All you'd need to do is create a carbon tax, and send a check to every American for the amount of the tax per capita. It would be revenue neutral (minus the postage stamp). No "job killing" or other BS like that. It would provide the proper incentives for people to change their own behavior at the time of their choosing and in the most efficient manner based on price signals. Hey, suddenly owning an electric car is even more inexpensive over the long run without subsidies--we should buy one! Hey, solar energy is cheaper for us to buy than this coal stuff--let's install a ton of those and send the power to our customers! Etc. It's a tax that sunsets itself. It sounds like a very free-market, economically conservative approach to the problem.
The real problem is that all the Republicans get huge amounts of bribes campaign contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industries--industries that would like to continue to make money without paying for the consequences of their actions.
Right on. It's hard to agree upon comprehensive action though when all but a handful of Republican politicians won't even admit that action needs to be taken. There are plenty of conservative arguments for a carbon tax (as a very quick example: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/02/benefits-of-carbon-tax). Sometimes I hope that all the uproar over the EPA clean power plan will convince conservatives to push for a more logical options like a carbon tax. But too bad so many of them have pledged to never raise taxes ever for anything ever. The clean power plan is not ideal, but something has to happen.
I know you didn't want to get started Chris22, but I'm curious why you think Cap and Trade and GW credits (?) are such a scam. Was it that 2009 bill specifically, or the concept more broadly?
I can't support any republican candidate who isn't willing to address this issue (so maybe Lindsey Graham?)
-
I really fail to see how he can be considered extreme, when none of what he says is remotely new to the history of our country, aside from Healthcare. He is basically an older, frailer, Jewish version of Teddy Roosevelt.
If he gets boxed out of the Democratic nomination, I fervently hope he runs as a Bull Moose.
He has stated that he will not run against Hillary if she gets the nomination. He respects her and won't split the vote if it would jeopardize a win in the general election.
-
a more logical options like a carbon tax. But too bad so many of them have pledged to never raise taxes ever for anything ever.
How would you feel about a revenue neutral carbon tax, say one that cuts income taxes by the exact dollar amount the government is going to collect in carbon taxes?
That's not raising taxes, that's just taxing different stuff to get the same amount of taxes.
-
One of my favorite passages from World War Z (the awesome book not the shitty movie)
“Oh C'mon. Can you ever "solve" poverty? Can you ever "solve" crime? Can you ever "solve" disease, unemployment, war or any other societal herpes? Hell no. All you can hope for is to make them manageable enough to allow people to get on with their lives. That's not cynicism, that's maturity. You can't stop the rain. All you can do is just build a roof that you hope won't leak, or at least leak on the people who are gonna vote for you.”
-
Oh, how quickly we like to revise history. The biggot[sic] vote? You know who else was anti-gay marriage in 2004? Obama. Hillary. A majority in California. Were all of these people biggots[sic] too?
Yes.
Of course, Obama and Clinton never seemed to be nearly as earnest about it as most of the Republicans... their position was more due to opportunistic political cynicsm than deep, evil conviction and therefore slightly less bad.
Exactly. I would guess that Obama, at least, has been in favor of marriage equality for a while now, but felt it was too politically risky. But yes, publicly, they definitely were bigots.
I don't know if that is supposed to condemn him or defend him. Frankly, I think being against something you think is wrong but not wanting to speak up against it for political expediency is at least as bad as being for that wrong thing. The word "unprincipled" comes to mind.
Let me be clear: Obama is indeed an unprincipled shithead with few redeeming virtues (ditto Hillary). However, that's still an improvement compared to authoritarian theocrats like Bush II, Santorum, Perry, Walker, Jindal, etc.
So who politicized all the solutions? Oh right.
All you'd need to do is create a carbon tax, and send a check to every American for the amount of the tax per capita. It would be revenue neutral (minus the postage stamp). No "job killing" or other BS like that. It would provide the proper incentives for people to change their own behavior at the time of their choosing and in the most efficient manner based on price signals. Hey, suddenly owning an electric car is even more inexpensive over the long run without subsidies--we should buy one! Hey, solar energy is cheaper for us to buy than this coal stuff--let's install a ton of those and send the power to our customers! Etc. It's a tax that sunsets itself. It sounds like a very free-market, economically conservative approach to the problem.
The real problem is that all the Republicans get huge amounts of bribes campaign contributions from the oil, gas, and coal industries--industries that would like to continue to make money without paying for the consequences of their actions.
Exactly. The only reason there is allegedly no solution to a whole bunch of problems from health care to climate change, is that every time the Democrats come up with a free-market solution the Republicans reject it!
By all rights, any "free market capitalist" Republican should absolutely LOVE:
- carbon credits
RomneyObamacare (at least in comparison to the previous status quo)- stricter food labeling standards (since perfect competition requires perfect information (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition))
- and any other policies that minimize externalities and market inefficiencies.
But by-and-large they don't, because either (A) they prioritize bullshit political football over good policy and oppose good ideas just because Democrats like them, and/or (B) they're actually just corrupt fucks beholden to oligarchs.
This is not to say that I condemn all Republicans! Far from it; some of them aren't bad at all. For example, I voted for Jon Huntsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.) in the Republican primary last time, and would have been thrilled to vote for him in the general election if he hadn't lost. (Instead, I ended up voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate.)
If you want a good sampling of this poll, might find a way to show it to more on these forums. Today is the first day I've come to this section of the forum website.
Use the "Show unread posts since last visit (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/unread/)" link at the top of any page.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
I just have to say, my very least favorite form of political "debate" takes the form of silly labels that are meant to reduce a candidate to one (usually erroneous) simplistic facet.
Well, maybe that's tied with the ridiculously persistent third-grade level name calling, e.g. "Obummer".
Bernie is an admitted socialist. Hillary's ineptitude got 4 Americans killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. Silly labels? Hardly. It's called the truth. You're 48...should be mature enough by now to handle it.
There's a difference between describing someone and using a label pejoratively to attack them. The latter is childish, disingenuous, and exactly what you did.
Bernie calls himself a socialist -- which isn't true by European or historical standards, as others have pointed out -- but so what? Bernie-style pseudo-socialism is exactly what we fucking need right about now!
(Hillary, of course, deserves pejorative labels.)
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
That's largely because people haven't heard of so many of the Republican candidates. She's more popular than any of the Republican candidates who more than 50% of Americans have an opinion about:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles
Interestingly, Ben Carson has the highest net favorability rating (positive - negative) at +12, but 64% of people don't know of him or have an opinion. Bernie Sanders has a positive net favorability, but again most people don't have an opinion, similar to Carly Fiorina and John Kasich.
-
a more logical options like a carbon tax. But too bad so many of them have pledged to never raise taxes ever for anything ever.
How would you feel about a revenue neutral carbon tax, say one that cuts income taxes by the exact dollar amount the government is going to collect in carbon taxes?
That's not raising taxes, that's just taxing different stuff to get the same amount of taxes.
I would be all for it! Sorry if it wasn't clear from my post that I am very much pro market mechanisms to regulate GHGs. I haven't really though too much about what would be my most preferred offsetting tax cut, but income tax seems like a logical choice. I figure if we are arguing which tax to offset, we are in a better position than we are today.
-
My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out. There are certainly non-swing voters that do. I'm not sure how that's even up for debate. If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.
Do you mean more restrictions or some restrictions?
PS - Don't know anyone in favor of gun violence.
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
Oh, and to actually answer your question, yes, Clinton would be a favorite against any of the top contenders in the Republican field. It would be close against Bush (Clinton currently polling 4 points ahead of Bush), but a landslide against some of the others: Clinton is currently +15 against Trump, +9 against Cruz, and +11 against Christie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
-
My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out. There are certainly non-swing voters that do. I'm not sure how that's even up for debate. If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.
Do you mean more restrictions or some restrictions?
PS - Don't know anyone in favor of gun violence.
No, I mean exactly what I said. People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
Oh, and to actually answer your question, yes, Clinton would be a favorite against any of the top contenders in the Republican field. It would be close against Bush (Clinton currently polling 4 points ahead of Bush), but a landslide against some of the others: Clinton is currently +15 against Trump, +9 against Cruz, and +11 against Christie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
No, I don't think she can win the presidential election.
-
People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Wow... just wow.
That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."
On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:
Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.
-
As someone who knew Sean Smith, who died in Benghazi, I am always disappointed by the willingness of people to politicize his tragedy.
-
People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Wow... just wow.
That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."
On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:
Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.
I'm confused. Do you think allowing felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase any and all guns without restriction would not increase violent gun deaths?
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
Oh, and to actually answer your question, yes, Clinton would be a favorite against any of the top contenders in the Republican field. It would be close against Bush (Clinton currently polling 4 points ahead of Bush), but a landslide against some of the others: Clinton is currently +15 against Trump, +9 against Cruz, and +11 against Christie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
The polls are basically name recognition at this point. They will change dramatically as the season wears on and people actually find out who the candidates are. I don't know what this will do the Hilary vs whomever races, other than to make some of them a lot tighter. At this point in the 2008 cycle Hilary was crushing everyone and people couldn't pronounce "Barack Obama".
-
My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out. There are certainly non-swing voters that do. I'm not sure how that's even up for debate. If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.
Do you mean more restrictions or some restrictions?
PS - Don't know anyone in favor of gun violence.
No, I mean exactly what I said. People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Start with this. Pick a mass shooting and explain what law would have prevented it and how. Remember that the shooter is already violating a law by shooting people. Use as a given that guns exist and you can't uninvent them.
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
That's largely because people haven't heard of so many of the Republican candidates. She's more popular than any of the Republican candidates who more than 50% of Americans have an opinion about:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles
Interestingly, Ben Carson has the highest net favorability rating (positive - negative) at +12, but 64% of people don't know of him or have an opinion. Bernie Sanders has a positive net favorability, but again most people don't have an opinion, similar to Carly Fiorina and John Kasich.
The amount of negative numbers is largely irrelevant. Our system doesn't allow you to vote directly "against" a certain candidate - it's only how many votes you can get. And if the recent past is any indication, just over 50% of the eligible voters will actually vote. To win any one state, you only need just about half the votes (there's usually a few independents in there). Hillary's got very low numbers in states no Democrat is likely to carry anyway, but she had enough support in the other states to make her competitive.
Hillary's not my candidate. But I'd vote for her over any of the half-dozen or so republican frontrunners who openly deny climate change or insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves. That's the problem I see - while normally a negative opinion of one politician is enough to make many people vote for the "other guy/gal" - in this case so many of the GOP hopefuls are also viewed negatively by non-conservatives.
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
Oh, and to actually answer your question, yes, Clinton would be a favorite against any of the top contenders in the Republican field. It would be close against Bush (Clinton currently polling 4 points ahead of Bush), but a landslide against some of the others: Clinton is currently +15 against Trump, +9 against Cruz, and +11 against Christie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
The polls are basically name recognition at this point. They will change dramatically as the season wears on and people actually find out who the candidates are. I don't know what this will do the Hilary vs whomever races, other than to make some of them a lot tighter. At this point in the 2008 cycle Hilary was crushing everyone and people couldn't pronounce "Barack Obama".
Well, that's oversimplifying it. Yes, I agree the polls will change. But very few people are going to change their mind about Clinton - her favorability rating is basically the same as it was 8 years ago, at the same time her advantage over Obama was about the same as her current advantage over Obama. And, as I pointed out above, her favorability ratings – which are predictive of election results – are much better than most of the Republican field.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
Honestly, I AM surprised.
-
My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out. There are certainly non-swing voters that do. I'm not sure how that's even up for debate. If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.
Do you mean more restrictions or some restrictions?
PS - Don't know anyone in favor of gun violence.
No, I mean exactly what I said. People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Start with this. Pick a mass shooting and explain what law would have prevented it and how. Remember that the shooter is already violating a law by shooting people. Use as a given that guns exist and you can't uninvent them.
South Carolina Church. Increase effectiveness of existing background checks (not a new law). FBI and local police allowed a disqualified person to purchase a firearm.
Yes. He may have purchased through other means but I'm fine with the Existing background check process.
-
insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.
Who besides trump?
-
People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Wow... just wow.
That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."
On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:
Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.
I'm confused. Do you think allowing felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase any and all guns without restriction would not increase violent gun deaths?
Indeed you are confused. Specifically, you're failing to understand that it is in fact possible for someone to rationally believe that a policy is worthwhile despite it having some bad side effects. In this case, it's entirely possible for a rational person to believe that the lives lost due to such a policy would be worth it in return for the benefits of such a policy (perhaps not the least of which is that failing to take a hard line in upholding the 2nd Amendment encourages the government to abuse the rest of our rights).
Note that in this argument I'm accepting your premise that letting felons et. al. buy guns would in fact increase deaths associated with guns. The validity of such a premise is certainly debatable -- and Chris22 apparently wants to debate it -- but I'm saying that even if that premise is accepted, the argument in the previous paragraph still stands!
Also note that I'm not saying anyone has to agree with such a position (and I'm also not saying that I hold that position!), I'm just saying you can't reject the validity of its existence.
More to the point, we both know that it's no accident that you created a strawman to frame the issue in the most inflammatory way possible. There's a big fucking difference between prohibiting felons from buying guns and Chicago-style gun control and a wide range of possible policies between, but you're trying to create a false dichotomy that the only choices are zero guns or Somali-style anarchy.
-
Does anyone really think that Hillary has a chance to fairly win the general election? She has the highest negatives I've ever seen.
That's largely because people haven't heard of so many of the Republican candidates. She's more popular than any of the Republican candidates who more than 50% of Americans have an opinion about:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles
Interestingly, Ben Carson has the highest net favorability rating (positive - negative) at +12, but 64% of people don't know of him or have an opinion. Bernie Sanders has a positive net favorability, but again most people don't have an opinion, similar to Carly Fiorina and John Kasich.
The amount of negative numbers is largely irrelevant. Our system doesn't allow you to vote directly "against" a certain candidate - it's only how many votes you can get. And if the recent past is any indication, just over 50% of the eligible voters will actually vote. To win any one state, you only need just about half the votes (there's usually a few independents in there). Hillary's got very low numbers in states no Democrat is likely to carry anyway, but she had enough support in the other states to make her competitive.
Hillary's not my candidate. But I'd vote for her over any of the half-dozen or so republican frontrunners who openly deny climate change or insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves. That's the problem I see - while normally a negative opinion of one politician is enough to make many people vote for the "other guy/gal" - in this case so many of the GOP hopefuls are also viewed negatively by non-conservatives.
Right, that's why I talked about net favorability ratings. Basically, the number of people who would vote for them minus the number who would vote against them. And most of these polls are of "likely voters" in order to best predict the actual results of an election, taking into account who will actually vote.
-
insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.
Who besides trump?
Any candidate who has failed to publicly and vociferously condemn him for it (in the way that they condemned him for dissing McCain). In this case, Trump's statements were so outrageous that silence is tacit agreement.
-
insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.
Who besides trump?
Any candidate who has failed to publicly and vociferously condemn him for it (in the way that they condemned him for dissing McCain). In this case, Trump's statements were so outrageous that silence is tacit agreement.
Failing to condemn someone is not the same as agreeing with them.
Trump has a big mouth. You can't attack every one of his outrageous statements.
-
I think pretty much all presidential contenders are, by definition, shitbags. Unless it would mean voting for Hillary, I intend to do what I usually do: vote for the candidate that is most likely to spend all their time tied up fighting with Congress so nothing gets done.
-
insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.
Who besides trump?
Any candidate who has failed to publicly and vociferously condemn him for it (in the way that they condemned him for dissing McCain). In this case, Trump's statements were so outrageous that silence is tacit agreement.
Failing to condemn someone is not the same as agreeing with them.
Trump has a big mouth. You can't attack every one of his outrageous statements.
Point taken about Trump's big mouth. However, the choice to condemn the dissing of McCain instead of the dissing of the entire Mexican race speaks volumes.
-
People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Wow... just wow.
That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."
On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:
Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.
I'm confused. Do you think allowing felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase any and all guns without restriction would not increase violent gun deaths?
Indeed you are confused. Specifically, you're failing to understand that it is in fact possible for someone to rationally believe that a policy is worthwhile despite it having some bad side effects. In this case, it's entirely possible for a rational person to believe that the lives lost due to such a policy would be worth it in return for the benefits of such a policy (perhaps not the least of which is that failing to take a hard line in upholding the 2nd Amendment encourages the government to abuse the rest of our rights).
Note that in this argument I'm accepting your premise that letting felons et. al. buy guns would in fact increase deaths associated with guns. The validity of such a premise is certainly debatable -- and Chris22 apparently wants to debate it -- but I'm saying that even if that premise is accepted, the argument in the previous paragraph still stands!
Also note that I'm not saying anyone has to agree with such a position (and I'm also not saying that I hold that position!), I'm just saying you can't reject the validity of its existence.
Okay, even if you determine that it's "worth it", you've still decided that more gun violence is better than less. I'm not sure how to make that more clear.
More to the point, we both know that it's no accident that you created a strawman to frame the issue in the most inflammatory way possible. There's a big fucking difference between prohibiting felons from buying guns and Chicago-style gun control and a wide range of possible policies between, but you're trying to create a false dichotomy that the only choices are zero guns or Somali-style anarchy.
Please point out said strawman. I created no dichotomy. I even specifically stated that I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment. I have no idea how you drew this conclusion.
And as fun as this silly semantics argument has been, it would've been more fun if either you or Chris would've read what I wrote instead of reading into what I wrote and attributing statements to me that I didn't make.
-
People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
Wow... just wow.
That's so stupid and wrongheaded I don't even know how to refute it. It'd be like trying to explain the concept that 2 + 2 = 4 to someone who refuses to accept the definition of "2."
On second thought, I'll take a stab at it via analogy:
Your statement is like claiming that anybody in favor of no restrictions on pencils is also in favor of hate speech. Or that anybody in favor of no restrictions on water is also in favor of drowning. It just flat-out doesn't make any fucking sense.
I'm confused. Do you think allowing felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill to purchase any and all guns without restriction would not increase violent gun deaths?
Indeed you are confused. Specifically, you're failing to understand that it is in fact possible for someone to rationally believe that a policy is worthwhile despite it having some bad side effects. In this case, it's entirely possible for a rational person to believe that the lives lost due to such a policy would be worth it in return for the benefits of such a policy (perhaps not the least of which is that failing to take a hard line in upholding the 2nd Amendment encourages the government to abuse the rest of our rights).
Note that in this argument I'm accepting your premise that letting felons et. al. buy guns would in fact increase deaths associated with guns. The validity of such a premise is certainly debatable -- and Chris22 apparently wants to debate it -- but I'm saying that even if that premise is accepted, the argument in the previous paragraph still stands!
Also note that I'm not saying anyone has to agree with such a position (and I'm also not saying that I hold that position!), I'm just saying you can't reject the validity of its existence.
Okay, even if you determine that it's "worth it", you've still decided that more gun violence is better than less. I'm not sure how to make that more clear.
I'm not sure how to make it more clear that it's incredibly fucking disingenuous to extract that from its context and consider it in isolation.
Here, I'll do it to you: apparently, you think less gun violence is better than more, full stop, no exceptions. That means even when said gun violence would be in self-defense. Clearly, you believe that it's better to allow [insert violent dictator here] to exterminate entire populations than to use guns to fight back. Clearly, if someone were raping your family member and you had a gun, you'd put that gun down and give them a big thumbs up instead. Clearly, forming a militia to take up arms against an invading army* is no bueno in your book.
Now do you see where you went wrong?
More to the point, we both know that it's no accident that you created a strawman to frame the issue in the most inflammatory way possible. There's a big fucking difference between prohibiting felons from buying guns and Chicago-style gun control and a wide range of possible policies between, but you're trying to create a false dichotomy that the only choices are zero guns or Somali-style anarchy.
Please point out said strawman. I created no dichotomy. I even specifically stated that I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment. I have no idea how you drew this conclusion.
And as fun as this silly semantics argument has been, it would've been more fun if either you or Chris would've read what I wrote instead of reading into what I wrote and attributing statements to me that I didn't make.
Strawman right here:
Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.
Why would that matter? It's not like he's picking up any (R) votes anyway, since he's a dreaded socialist! Do you think there are a lot of swing voters who own AR-15s or love gun violence?
You are equating any policy other than making handguns and non-hunting rifles illegal with "lov[ing] gun violence." That's the damn strawman!
(* which is exactly what the Second Amendment is actually for, and why "guns made to kill people" are the ones that should be most protected by it!)
-
Suggest we take the gun control discussion to another thread. That discussion never goes anywhere productive. I think it's fair enough to say that some people will or won't support certain candidates because of their stance on that issue.
-
Suggest we take the gun control discussion to another thread. That discussion never goes anywhere productive. I think it's fair enough to say that some people will or won't support certain candidates because of their stance on that issue.
For what it's worth, I'm trying as hard as I can to keep the argument about rhetoric itself, and not the subject matter of the rhetoric. The inclusion of the parenthetical expression at the end of my previous post is a failure in that regard, so I apologize for failing to resist the urge to include it.
-
Suggest we take the gun control discussion to another thread. That discussion never goes anywhere productive. I think it's fair enough to say that some people will or won't support certain candidates because of their stance on that issue.
+1.
-
Sorry forummm. You're right. I won't post about it anymore after this.
Strawman right here:
Bernie Sanders is honest, and says he wants to make guns made to kill people illegal. Most can assume that means handguns and non-hunting rifles. He won't become president because a lot of his stance on this. Maybe he can become governor of California now that the governator is done.
Why would that matter? It's not like he's picking up any (R) votes anyway, since he's a dreaded socialist! Do you think there are a lot of swing voters who own AR-15s or love gun violence?
You are equating any policy other than making handguns and non-hunting rifles illegal with "lov[ing] gun violence." That's the damn strawman!
First, that's not a strawman argument. I didn't misrepresent anyone's views to defeat them. I didn't state that everyone against Bernie's ideas loved gun violence. If I had, I admit that would be a strawman. But I didn't. I further defined what I meant by "love gun violence" as being someone who views zero restrictions as a favorable policy. Therefore the question was, do you think there are a lot of swing voters who want zero gun restrictions? And being that it was pretty much rhetorical anyway, I'm not sure why I've wasted so much time on this.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
I just have to say, my very least favorite form of political "debate" takes the form of silly labels that are meant to reduce a candidate to one (usually erroneous) simplistic facet.
Well, maybe that's tied with the ridiculously persistent third-grade level name calling, e.g. "Obummer".
Bernie is an admitted socialist. Hillary's ineptitude got 4 Americans killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. Silly labels? Hardly. It's called the truth. You're 48...should be mature enough by now to handle it.
Bernie is an avowed Democratic Socialist. There's a difference. Hillary did not personally kill the four in Benghazi, and despite repeated efforts by conservatives to make political hay out of the incident, the House Intelligence Committee concluded that there was no wrongdoing by the Obama administration. Not to mention, getting back to my criticism above, Benghazi was one incident in Hillary Clinton's entire political career. It's like nicknaming me "durian" because I tried durian once. (Didn't like it, by the way. Tastes like rancid onions.)
My point is, it's hard to have an adult conversation about issues when that kind of playground namecalling is being passed off as trenchant political critique.
-
Republicans: Oh Noes, t3h #PresidentBlackula is coming to takes away all our gunz!
*6+ years of record gun and ammunition manufacturing profits follow. No republicans have been hauled off to FEMA camps. And here in Houston, I still haven't been forcibly converted to a homosexual Marxist by Operation Jade Failure. I visited the firing range just yesterday with my .22 and no "dirty brown people" harassed me at all (mebbe b/c I was armed and dangerous). Praise Jeebus that Obummer is too incompetent to implement his EVIL PLAN...
-
insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.
Who besides trump?
It helps to read the entire sentence, which was:
But I'd vote for her over any of the half-dozen or so republican frontrunners who openly deny climate change or insuate that most Mexican immigrants are rapists, murderers and thieves.
Trump obviously made the comment about Mexican immigrants, and the list is long for notable republican candidates who deny or doubt human-induced climate change: Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, etc. Collectively, a half dozen or so.
-
By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?
-
By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?
* 11140354_10152960789218375_7952570747615699414_n.jpg (25.69 kB, 480x369 - viewed 0 times.)
+1
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
-
Bernie is an admitted socialist. Hillary's ineptitude got 4 Americans killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. Silly labels? Hardly. It's called the truth. You're 48...should be mature enough by now to handle it.
Unless it's a giant conspiracy theory, it was Islamic extremists who killed the 4 Americans. Hillary wasn't even ther. She made what I consider to be an incredibily bone-headed move of jumping to conclusions and feeding the media false reports instead of simply saying "we don't know what happened yet, we're investigating and we'll let you know." Big F-up. But she didn't cause those deaths any more than Rumsfield caused 9/11.
-
By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?
Consider it done, Durian ;)
-
By the way, can we officially add "misogynist sh*tbag" to the list of Trump descriptors?
Consider it done, Durian ;)
Ha! Thanks for the laugh! :)
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.
Perhaps. Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following. I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
Honestly, I AM surprised.
I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land. Most here lean so far to the left. It's like those old V8 commercials. When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be. When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.
As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
Honestly, I AM surprised.
I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land. Most here lean so far to the left. It's like those old V8 commercials. When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be. When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.
As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.
Perhaps. Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following. I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.
I think so, too. And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent. Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.
I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you. I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz. He really is certifiable.
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.
Perhaps. Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following. I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.
I think so, too. And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent. Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.
I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you. I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz. He really is certifiable.
I could say the same thing about the democratic hopefuls (a power crazy would-be dynasty builder and a nutball socialist). Remember, anything said during the run up to primary season is largely pandering to the base. After the nomination is secured both sides run toward the middle as fast as they can. Then you really start to find out what their policy agenda will look like.
My guess is that this far out the other republican contenders are mostly happy to sit back and watch Trump make an ass of himself. Wouldn't you?
-
I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you. I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs.
This is the fundamental problem with the GOP. There are definitely reasonable and intelligent republican politicians who would do a fine job as president. None of them can win the republican primary. Their big tent is crumbling before their very eyes.
If history is any guide, someone with a modicum of pre-existing credibility will lean just far enough out to squeak through the primary, then immediately lean back hard again for the general, and we'll get another election contest between apparent milquetoast centrists who pretend to agree on everything, secretly disagree on most things but can't say so out loud, and are ultimately entirely beholden to corporate interests anyway.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
Honestly, I AM surprised.
I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land. Most here lean so far to the left. It's like those old V8 commercials. When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be. When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.
As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.
-
Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
MMM is possibly not eligible. He is possibly Constitutionally disqualified due to not being a "natural born Citizen". While both he and Ted Cruz were born in Canada, Cruz had a US citizen mother.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
There's a legal argument that the 14th Amendment would override the original text in the Constitution requiring the president to be a "natural born Citizen" by saying that states may not abridge the priviliges of citizens, nor deny equal protection of the laws.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.
Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt. To do that you will have to raise taxes, period. Unless you see another way to do it?
-
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.
Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt. To do that you will have to raise taxes, period. Unless you see another way to do it?
Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years. Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.
-
Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
MMM is possibly not eligible. He is possibly Constitutionally disqualified due to not being a "natural born Citizen". While both he and Ted Cruz were born in Canada, Cruz had a US citizen mother.
you're forgetting an even bigger hurdle here - the IRP would have a field day if he ran. "So-called early retiree needs a JOB" They'd tear him to pieces...
-
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner.
What would count as "a responsible manner" in your eyes?
I agree that there is waste in government, just like there is in any large organization. The key distinction is whether that waste is practically avoidable or not. I would argue that your government is run by people who also hate waste, and constantly work to minimize it, but who also recognize their job will never be done. It's like crime or poverty, something you work to minimize while accepting you will never completely eradicate.
Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years. Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.
Why would you want to do that?
Don't you think that debt was created for a reason? People talk about the national debt like it's a figurative boat anchor, rather than a deliberate choice. But the truth is that we created that debt, just like we create money, for very specific and well justified reasons. We could wipe it out tomorrow by printing more money, but the people in charge aren't quite as simplistic as your average scared voter, so they know better than to seriously consider such things.
We need debt, just like we need taxes and we need money (if you think there is a clear distinction between the three) to make our economy function. It is the promise of future payment that motivates all current labor. You can't build space stations or reality television programs or the internet without them.
-
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner.
What would count as "a responsible manner" in your eyes?
I agree that there is waste in government, just like there is in any large organization. The key distinction is whether that waste is practically avoidable or not. I would argue that your government is run by people who also hate waste, and constantly work to minimize it, but who also recognize their job will never be done. It's like crime or poverty, something you work to minimize while accepting you will never completely eradicate.
First example off the top of my head is efficiency in building and repairs for roads/sidewalks, etc. because that is the business I am in. We have a contract with the city to provide all of the concrete for said repairs. They have these heavy duty pick up trucks that come every day to get filled with concrete. About half the time they will stop around the corner from our facility and hang out for 45 minutes milking the clock not doing anything and pretending to be en route. They also push back as late as possible for loading to ensure they get as much overtime as possible. While we are happy they use our products for the repairs it is disheartening to see how inefficient they are at their job and how much tax payer money is being wasted so they can hang out in their truck and get paid to not work while tallying up the overtime that gets counted towards their pensions. Multiply this around the country and that is a huge amount of waste.
Other things off the top of my head would be heavy military equipment being funded with taxpayer dollars that are not requested by the military (they say they don't want or need whatever it is) but they are only done to boost manufacturing in a politicians home state/district.
There are many more, but I am not one to defend cutting needed safety nets for the poor/mentally disabled etc. Also I would say the drug testing for welfare is not cost effective and not a good idea. (slightly off topic but my mind is wandering)
-
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.
Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt. To do that you will have to raise taxes, period. Unless you see another way to do it?
Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years. Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but lets assume you are right for the moment. If paying off the debt is dependent on future economic growth, we had damn well better get another democrat in there, unless the GOP has another Reagan up their sleeves:
(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen-shot-2014-07-29-at-11-05-52-am.png)
-
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner.
What would count as "a responsible manner" in your eyes?
I agree that there is waste in government, just like there is in any large organization. The key distinction is whether that waste is practically avoidable or not. I would argue that your government is run by people who also hate waste, and constantly work to minimize it, but who also recognize their job will never be done. It's like crime or poverty, something you work to minimize while accepting you will never completely eradicate.
First example off the top of my head is efficiency in building and repairs for roads/sidewalks, etc. because that is the business I am in. We have a contract with the city to provide all of the concrete for said repairs. They have these heavy duty pick up trucks that come every day to get filled with concrete. About half the time they will stop around the corner from our facility and hang out for 45 minutes milking the clock not doing anything and pretending to be en route. They also push back as late as possible for loading to ensure they get as much overtime as possible. While we are happy they use our products for the repairs it is disheartening to see how inefficient they are at their job and how much tax payer money is being wasted so they can hang out in their truck and get paid to not work while tallying up the overtime that gets counted towards their pensions. Multiply this around the country and that is a huge amount of waste.
Other things off the top of my head would be heavy military equipment being funded with taxpayer dollars that are not requested by the military (they say they don't want or need whatever it is) but they are only done to boost manufacturing in a politicians home state/district.
There are many more, but I am not one to defend cutting needed safety nets for the poor/mentally disabled etc. Also I would say the drug testing for welfare is not cost effective and not a good idea. (slightly off topic but my mind is wandering)
Having worked at a few large corporations myself (Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, Convergys, Century Link), and a bunch of smaller places, including startups, I can say that large corporations behave very similarly to the government when it comes to waste. Having worked at a series of smaller companies when I started my career I was shocked to see just how badly managed these large companies are.
So now when people I know complain about "government waste", I tell them its not any better in the private sector....
-
They have these heavy duty pick up trucks that come every day to get filled with concrete. About half the time they will stop around the corner from our facility and hang out for 45 minutes milking the clock not doing anything and pretending to be en route.
We have procedures in place for people like this. They'll be reprimanded and placed on a performance improvement plan, then they get six months to show improvement or they're fired and replaced with someone who can follow the rules. Report them. Don't stand idle. Speak up against waste when you see it.
The government actually has a whole host of waste and fraud prevention programs, including options for anonymous reporting and suggestions for streamlining operations. They don't do any good of people see waste and don't say anything.
-
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
I lean pretty republican but actually wouldn't mind a tax increase if I knew the money was being spent in a responsible manner. The problem is, there is so much waste and bullshit spending (created by Replublicans and Democrats) that it is hard to convince me that revenue is the problem, not the spending.
Cutting spending by itself might balance the budget, but it won't allow us to pay down our national debt. To do that you will have to raise taxes, period. Unless you see another way to do it?
Holding the budget balanced to a slight surplus is enough if it is done consistently over the next 5 to 10 years. Keep that up in an environment of decent, if not spectacular, growth would allow the US economy to slowly grow its way out of its current state of full leverage.
I'm not sure I agree with you, but lets assume you are right for the moment. If paying off the debt is dependent on future economic growth, we had damn well better get another democrat in there, unless the GOP has another Reagan up their sleeves:
(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen-shot-2014-07-29-at-11-05-52-am.png)
I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing. The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.
-
I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing. The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.
That's all totally fair, but it's still an interesting chart. Would you be more inclined to search for a causal relationship if it were 50 presidents instead of 10?
-
I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing. The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.
Well then, by your logic if it doesn't matter what monkey is in office (nice racist swipe at the current "monkey", BTW) then why even vote for a president at all. By your reasoning, it clearly doesn't matter if the monkey is a democrat or if the monkey is a republican.
I think its interesting to look at debt, too. If you'll notice, the great majority of our new debt is a direct result of Bush and Republican policies. No wonder they can't keep up with Dems when it comes to fiscal success for this country:
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cbppdebtchart.jpg)
-
...nice racist swipe at the current "monkey"...
Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey.
-
I'd say your chart is extremely simplistic and explains just about nothing. The world is a complex place and the monkey in the oval office has little control over what the economy does.
Well then, by your logic if it doesn't matter what monkey is in office (nice racist swipe at the current "monkey", BTW) then why even vote for a president at all. By your reasoning, it clearly doesn't matter if the monkey is a democrat or if the monkey is a republican.
I think its interesting to look at debt, too. If you'll notice, the great majority of our new debt is a direct result of Bush and Republican policies. No wonder they can't keep up with Dems when it comes to fiscal success for this country:
(http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/cbppdebtchart.jpg)
Only a real racist would play the race card with an innocent reference to a lower order primate. Nice.
As for the rest, its pretty clear that the actual spending that drove the increase in debt is from military misadventures (much beloved by both parties for decades) and gubmint spending during the crash. It is hard to argue with the spending during the crash simply because providing a countercyclical stimulus to the economy is exactly what gubmint spending is best used for. It would be pretty easy to argue that that spending was under both Bush and Obama's watch.
How you can consider tax cuts (AKA not taking as much out of citizen's wallets as before) as a source of debt is a mystery to me. You incur debt by spending.
-
Not true. You only incur debt if you spend more than you bring in. For the government, taxes ARE revenue. So by cutting taxes you decrease revenue and thus (ta da) increase debt.
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.
Perhaps. Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following. I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.
I think so, too. And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent. Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.
I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you. I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz. He really is certifiable.
I could say the same thing about the democratic hopefuls (a power crazy would-be dynasty builder and a nutball socialist). Remember, anything said during the run up to primary season is largely pandering to the base. After the nomination is secured both sides run toward the middle as fast as they can. Then you really start to find out what their policy agenda will look like.
My guess is that this far out the other republican contenders are mostly happy to sit back and watch Trump make an ass of himself. Wouldn't you?
Hm. Well, I don't so much think Bernie is a nutball. I do think he is very unusual in this day and age. The closest I've seen in recent memory to a Democratic candidate who could vpbe considered a "nutball" is maybe Dennis Kucinich. Hillary... She really, really wants to be president. She's also arguably pretty damn qualifited. I don't like her much, but... *shrug*
As far as the other Republican contenders watching Trump make an ass of himself... I don't know. I imagine they were expecting to do that righht after he announced. But if I were one of them right now, I think I'd be a little uncomfortable. After all, he's stealing their extreme right thunder. No one can go crazy train birther right wing wacko like he can. And that doesn't leave them a lot of room to out-Conservative the other conservatives, which seems to be the battle plan of a lot of them. I would imagine Trump's unexpected popularity has got a few of their campaign strategists scrambling a little.
-
Trump may be crazy, but I doubt he is stupid enough to actually want to be president. I am guessing that this is all about the Trump brand, AKA "I don't care what you print about me, but make sure you spell my name right."
I might have agreed with you a month ago, but now I've changed my mind. I agree that the campaign is an excuse to trumpet his brand, but Trump is nothing if not narcissistic and power-driven. I am absolutely sure he believes he could run the country, and the more encouragement he gets from the bigots in the Republican base, the more likely he is to go for it. He needs to be adored, and this is a whole new arena for him to be worshiped.
Perhaps. Like most narcissists, the only thing better to him than a mirror and a bottle of lube is likely to be a large adoring following. I imagine that at some point the powers that be in the Republican party will give a long think about his likely chances in a general election and act accordingly.
I think so, too. And at that point, Trump will take that as a snub -- and oh, Lord, how he HATES to be snubbed -- and decide to take his marbles and declare as an Independent. Which, hey, I am all for, because it will split the vote between him and one of the passel of nutjob Republicans vying for the office Republican candidates trying to out-crazy one another because they think that's what their base wants.
I'm not saying all Republicans are nutjobs, mind you. I'm just saying that as far as I can tell, all of the Republican candidates with the slightest likelihood of getting the nomination are acting like nutjobs. Except for Ted Cruz. He really is certifiable.
I could say the same thing about the democratic hopefuls (a power crazy would-be dynasty builder and a nutball socialist). Remember, anything said during the run up to primary season is largely pandering to the base. After the nomination is secured both sides run toward the middle as fast as they can. Then you really start to find out what their policy agenda will look like.
My guess is that this far out the other republican contenders are mostly happy to sit back and watch Trump make an ass of himself. Wouldn't you?
Hm. Well, I don't so much think Bernie is a nutball. I do think he is very unusual in this day and age. The closest I've seen in recent memory to a Democratic candidate who could vpbe considered a "nutball" is maybe Dennis Kucinich. Hillary... She really, really wants to be president. She's also arguably pretty damn qualifited. I don't like her much, but... *shrug*
As far as the other Republican contenders watching Trump make an ass of himself... I don't know. I imagine they were expecting to do that righht after he announced. But if I were one of them right now, I think I'd be a little uncomfortable. After all, he's stealing their extreme right thunder. No one can go crazy train birther right wing wacko like he can. And that doesn't leave them a lot of room to out-Conservative the other conservatives, which seems to be the battle plan of a lot of them. I would imagine Trump's unexpected popularity has got a few of their campaign strategists scrambling a little.
Could be. If I were a Republican contender that actually had a shot (e.g. not Christie or his ilk) I would be sitting back and waiting for Trump to blow himself up rather than trying hard to do so.
As for Bernie, he is a severe longshot candidate and he knows it. Elderly, Jewish, from New England, independent, socialist. Not happening. I'm sure he is having fun, but that is about it.
-
I honestly don't get how Rand Paul even feels like he can describe himself as a Libertarian anymore. At least his dad was more or less true to libertarian principles. Rand is just a shapeshifter.
Um, because he doesn't describe himself as a libertarian, and he never did.
-
Could be. If I were a Republican contender that actually had a shot (e.g. not Christie or his ilk) I would be sitting back and waiting for Trump to blow himself up rather than trying hard to do so.
As for Bernie, he is a severe longshot candidate and he knows it. Elderly, Jewish, from New England, independent, socialist. Not happening. I'm sure he is having fun, but that is about it.
Both Bernie & Hairpiece are doing exactly what they joined the race to do, control the narrative of their respective parties. I doubt that either of them actually expect to win the party nominations, but in failing to do so, both of them dictate what issues are being discussed by whatever candidate actually takes the nomination.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM
-
If history is any guide, someone with a modicum of pre-existing credibility will lean just far enough out to squeak through the primary, then immediately lean back hard again for the general, and we'll get another election contest between apparent milquetoast centrists who pretend to agree on everything, secretly disagree on most things but can't say so out loud, and are ultimately entirely beholden to corporate interests anyway.
As I said...
Great taste!
Less filling!
We'll have whoever appeals to a more centrist platform in the most likely scenario. That's Hillary at this time unless some GOP candidate can rise above the crabs in a bucket phenomenon that's happening in an appeal to an increasingly narrow (yet extraordinarily vocal) number of Americans.
-
Trump's healthcare plan sounds just like the healthcare plans that some other Republicans have described recently (for the few like Boehner and Romney that have actually articulated a framework for healthcare policy).
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-30/trump-s-obamacare-replacement-plan-sounds-quite-a-bit-like-obamacare
"At the talking point level, a plan like the ACA has broad political appeal. It’s maybe not so surprising that Donald Trump’s talking points sound a bit like the ACA, since the law is rooted in a lot of conservative ideas," Levitt said. "His emphasis on it being private and competitive is interesting. In fact, the ACA is a giant bet on a competitive, private health insurance system."
-
.... the crabs in a bucket phenomenon that's happening ...
1. I will now always think of crabs in a bucket every time I see the spreads with photos of all the various candidates.
2. I immediately thought of a crab with Trump-hair when I read this and almost spit out my coffee.
-
An honest question here about Marco Rubio (since I see a few people voted for him in the poll): What are some of the things you see in him that convince you he is the leader we need, or that you like about him as a candidate? Maybe it's because I'm hibernating from most of the news in political season, but I feel like I know almost nothing about him. Could also be that Republicans aren't investing a lot of time spreading their gospel here in Massachusetts, since clearly that would be barking up the wrong tree ;-)
-
An honest question here about Marco Rubio (since I see a few people voted for him in the poll): What are some of the things you see in him that convince you he is the leader we need, or that you like about him as a candidate? Maybe it's because I'm hibernating from most of the news in political season, but I feel like I know almost nothing about him. Could also be that Republicans aren't investing a lot of time spreading their gospel here in Massachusetts, since clearly that would be barking up the wrong tree ;-)
We know he drinks water instead of lattes (at least sometimes).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=19ZxJVnM5Gs#t=20
Although there was a thread here awhile back about how terrible his personal finances are.
-
My statement was that I doubt there are swing voters that love gun violence, but I'm not ruling it out. There are certainly non-swing voters that do. I'm not sure how that's even up for debate. If you're in favor of having no restrictions whatsoever on gun ownership (and these people are out there), then ipso facto you must be in favor of gun violence.
Do you mean more restrictions or some restrictions?
PS - Don't know anyone in favor of gun violence.
No, I mean exactly what I said. People in favor of no restrictions are also favor gun violence. I'm not sure how it could be viewed otherwise.
I'm in favor of no more restrictions because I love guns. AR-15s, 1911s, you name it. I don't favor gun violence, I just like to shoot guns, it's a fun hobby. Don't be ignorant.
-
.... the crabs in a bucket phenomenon that's happening ...
1. I will now always think of crabs in a bucket every time I see the spreads with photos of all the various candidates.
2. I immediately thought of a crab with Trump-hair when I read this and almost spit out my coffee.
#2 just made my day at work. Thanks.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
The ACA is exactly the opposite of these things.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
The ACA is exactly the opposite of these things.
FTFY
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
The ACA is exactly the opposite of these things.
You're going to have to provide evidence, because you're taking a position that's exactly the opposite of what pretty much every analysis shows.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
The ACA is exactly the opposite of these things.
You're going to have to provide evidence, because you're taking a position that's exactly the opposite of what pretty much every analysis shows.
Perhaps every analysis you have seen, I can accept that.
I'm currently too busy to go into much detail, but for starters, the ACA reduced competition by reducing the area that an individual can shop for insurance within. Before, the complaint that one could not shop for insurance across state lines; but the ACA limits the shopping area by local regions. So while I live in Louisville, Ky; before the ACA I could choose a private insurer based in Lexington. But now, if that same insurer in Lexington isn't also registered in my own county, it's a violation for them to renew my plan. Granted, the prices from one county to the next isn't likely much difference; but it could be in some places, because not every insurance company bothers to register in every county, and some very rural areas have a limited number of companies willing to service them under ACA regulations. That, by definition, is not a competitive market.
-
I'm currently too busy to go into much detail, but for starters, the ACA reduced competition by reducing the area that an individual can shop for insurance within. Before, the complaint that one could not shop for insurance across state lines; but the ACA limits the shopping area by local regions. So while I live in Louisville, Ky; before the ACA I could choose a private insurer based in Lexington. But now, if that same insurer in Lexington isn't also registered in my own county, it's a violation for them to renew my plan. Granted, the prices from one county to the next isn't likely much difference; but it could be in some places, because not every insurance company bothers to register in every county, and some very rural areas have a limited number of companies willing to service them under ACA regulations. That, by definition, is not a competitive market.
The ACA didn't affect this. Each state handles their own insurance market rules and decides what plans can be sold where. And each company decides where they want to do business. Some very rural areas are less profitable and so fewer participants join that market. This also wasn't affected negatively by the ACA. In fact, the ACA would tend to do the opposite by increasing the number of people who can afford insurance in those rural markets, thereby creating more demand for insurance products.
We're a little off topic. Happy to discuss more in another thread if you care to start one.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
The ACA is exactly the opposite of these things.
You're going to have to provide evidence, because you're taking a position that's exactly the opposite of what pretty much every analysis shows.
Perhaps every analysis you have seen, I can accept that.
I'm currently too busy to go into much detail, but for starters, the ACA reduced competition by reducing the area that an individual can shop for insurance within. Before, the complaint that one could not shop for insurance across state lines; but the ACA limits the shopping area by local regions. So while I live in Louisville, Ky; before the ACA I could choose a private insurer based in Lexington. But now, if that same insurer in Lexington isn't also registered in my own county, it's a violation for them to renew my plan. Granted, the prices from one county to the next isn't likely much difference; but it could be in some places, because not every insurance company bothers to register in every county, and some very rural areas have a limited number of companies willing to service them under ACA regulations. That, by definition, is not a competitive market.
There are a number of studies out there that argue that the ACA has reduced competition, and others that argue the ACA has increased competition. But that's not what forummm said. He said "competitive market" NOT "more competitive market." There's no question that there is, still, a competitive health insurance market.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
The ACA is exactly the opposite of these things.
You're going to have to provide evidence, because you're taking a position that's exactly the opposite of what pretty much every analysis shows.
Perhaps every analysis you have seen, I can accept that.
I'm currently too busy to go into much detail, but for starters, the ACA reduced competition by reducing the area that an individual can shop for insurance within. Before, the complaint that one could not shop for insurance across state lines; but the ACA limits the shopping area by local regions. So while I live in Louisville, Ky; before the ACA I could choose a private insurer based in Lexington. But now, if that same insurer in Lexington isn't also registered in my own county, it's a violation for them to renew my plan. Granted, the prices from one county to the next isn't likely much difference; but it could be in some places, because not every insurance company bothers to register in every county, and some very rural areas have a limited number of companies willing to service them under ACA regulations. That, by definition, is not a competitive market.
There are a number of studies out there that argue that the ACA has reduced competition, and others that argue the ACA has increased competition. But that's not what forummm said. He said "competitive market" NOT "more competitive market." There's no question that there is, still, a competitive health insurance market.
He implied that there was not a competitive market beforehand, and therefore I interpreted it as meaning that competition was improved. It has not, nor was it intended to.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
He implied that there was not a competitive market beforehand, and therefore I interpreted it as meaning that competition was improved. It has not, nor was it intended to.
That's not how I read it at all. The comparison is not to pre-ACA, but to other health insurance systems options, like single payer systems.
-
Oh, it also sounds like the ACA. Which is, you know, a conservative, competitive market, private health insurance oriented policy that lowers the deficit and encourages innovation to reduce costs in the sector.
He implied that there was not a competitive market beforehand, and therefore I interpreted it as meaning that competition was improved. It has not, nor was it intended to.
That's not how I read it at all.
Also, not how I wrote it. We had a competitive market before (with significant market failure). We have a competitive market now (with significant market failure, but some of the failure is being corrected).
-
An honest question here about Marco Rubio (since I see a few people voted for him in the poll): What are some of the things you see in him that convince you he is the leader we need, or that you like about him as a candidate? Maybe it's because I'm hibernating from most of the news in political season, but I feel like I know almost nothing about him. Could also be that Republicans aren't investing a lot of time spreading their gospel here in Massachusetts, since clearly that would be barking up the wrong tree ;-)
I know very little about him, but it annoys me that some Republicans (him included) want to stop funding to planned parenthood just because they do abortions. They also do cheap STD testing, birth control, things that help pregnant woman (I'm a single guy so I don't know much about what that entails) and other helpful things. I would understand them wanting to cut funding to it because it's government intervention where it shouldn't be, and that it's socialist, or if a majority of what they did was abortions. But they are trying to stop funding to it because like 1% of what they do is abortions.
-
But they are trying to stop funding to it because like 1% of what they do is abortions.
It's somewhat more than that. Now, it's not 90% as Jon Kyl once said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/). On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html).
-
As someone who knew Sean Smith, who died in Benghazi, I am always disappointed by the willingness of people to politicize his tragedy.
You must be really disappointed with the current administration then.
Yeah, it's a shame how it's the administration that's always going around talking about Benghazi all the time, and not at all anyone else ever.
-
But they are trying to stop funding to it because like 1% of what they do is abortions.
It's somewhat more than that. Now, it's not 90% as Jon Kyl once said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/). On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html).
Any person who is honest in wanting to reduce the total number of abortions rather than a percentage of specific ones should support planned parenthood wholeheartedly. Family planning through sex education and services will do far more to reduce abortion than closing clinics. Want to reduce abortions? Reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate. Remember it is "Planned" Parenthood. Defunding PP is likely to increase the unplanned pregnancy rate, and the resulting abortions are likely to be carried out at greater duress to the woman and possibly even under less competent medical facilities. This is why using PP as a political punching bag does not make sense to me beyond recognition that it is a classic trolley car dilemma.
-
But they are trying to stop funding to it because like 1% of what they do is abortions.
It's somewhat more than that. Now, it's not 90% as Jon Kyl once said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/). On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html).
Any person who is honest in wanting to reduce the total number of abortions rather than a percentage of specific ones should support planned parenthood wholeheartedly. Family planning through sex education and services will do far more to reduce abortion than closing clinics. Want to reduce abortions? Reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate. Remember it is "Planned" Parenthood. Defunding PP is likely to increase the unplanned pregnancy rate, and the resulting abortions are likely to be carried out at greater duress to the woman and possibly even under less competent medical facilities. This is why using PP as a political punching bag does not make sense to me beyond recognition that it is a classic trolley car dilemma.
+1 I'm more republican in the fact that I don't like that the United States is becoming more socialist every year, but this is one of the few things I'm glad the federal government is funding.
-
But they are trying to stop funding to it because like 1% of what they do is abortions.
It's somewhat more than that. Now, it's not 90% as Jon Kyl once said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/). On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html).
Any person who is honest in wanting to reduce the total number of abortions rather than a percentage of specific ones should support planned parenthood wholeheartedly. Family planning through sex education and services will do far more to reduce abortion than closing clinics. Want to reduce abortions? Reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate. Remember it is "Planned" Parenthood. Defunding PP is likely to increase the unplanned pregnancy rate, and the resulting abortions are likely to be carried out at greater duress to the woman and possibly even under less competent medical facilities. This is why using PP as a political punching bag does not make sense to me beyond recognition that it is a classic trolley car dilemma.
+1 I'm more republican in the fact that I don't like that the United States is becoming more socialist every year, but this is one of the few things I'm glad the federal government is funding.
And my point is not so much about PP itself, but the dishonesty from both sides. The right is wrong to say 90%, and the left is wrong to say 3%. We know why each says what it says so we could ignore the specifics, but it seems better to request honesty from all sides.
-
And my point is not so much about PP itself, but the dishonesty from both sides. The right is wrong to say 90%, and the left is wrong to say 3%. We know why each says what it says so we could ignore the specifics, but it seems better to request honesty from all sides.
No, it's 3%. And none of it comes from the federal government. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
-
And my point is not so much about PP itself, but the dishonesty from both sides. The right is wrong to say 90%, and the left is wrong to say 3%. We know why each says what it says so we could ignore the specifics, but it seems better to request honesty from all sides.
No, it's 3%. And none of it comes from the federal government. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
If anyone wants to claim 3% is correct, then I hope they also calculate their asset allocation by counting the number of shares they hold instead of the value of those shares. I'd still disagree, but at least give them points for consistency.
See slate.com - hardly a bastion of conservatism - for a "lies, damn lies, and statistics" perspective: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html
-
If only this administration had any shame. But we may be getting off topic. For many, the failure in Benghazi disqualifies Hilary. I hope she continues to stay atop the democrat polls and wins the primary because she's a weak candidate.
I still don't understand where the 'failure' lies, except with the immediate remarks to the press right after the attacks. Are you referring to the attack itself of afterwards?
As for the other side, there's what, 17 folks in the running for the GOP? Too early to tell who will be left standing a year from now.
There are 127 official candidates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/so-who-is-a-real-gop-candidate/)running under the Republican party. Anywhere between 10 and 18 of those are considered "real" candidates.
-
And my point is not so much about PP itself, but the dishonesty from both sides. The right is wrong to say 90%, and the left is wrong to say 3%. We know why each says what it says so we could ignore the specifics, but it seems better to request honesty from all sides.
No, it's 3%. And none of it comes from the federal government. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/
If anyone wants to claim 3% is correct, then I hope they also calculate their asset allocation by counting the number of shares they hold instead of the value of those shares. I'd still disagree, but at least give them points for consistency.
Just because abortion services are expensive relative to birth control services doesn't mean they should count more heavily in the calculation.
See slate.com - hardly a bastion of conservatism - for a "lies, damn lies, and statistics" perspective: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html
Slate might skew liberal, but the author of that post is anti-choice.
-
Just because abortion services are expensive relative to birth control services doesn't mean they should count more heavily in the calculation.
That is one perspective. I don't agree with it - and would likely disagree with any analysis of any business's operation that didn't use cash flow as the primary metric. As an analogy, should one calculate asset allocation by numbers of shares or values of shares?
Slate might skew liberal, but the author of that post is anti-choice.
Of course, the more pertinent question (beyond one's preconceptions) is "is the author correct?" As the answer to that depends on the definition noted above, ....
-
But they are trying to stop funding to it because like 1% of what they do is abortions.
It's somewhat more than that. Now, it's not 90% as Jon Kyl once said (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/). On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/07/_3_percent_of_planned_parenthood_s_services_are_abortion_but_what_about.html).
Any person who is honest in wanting to reduce the total number of abortions rather than a percentage of specific ones should support planned parenthood wholeheartedly. Family planning through sex education and services will do far more to reduce abortion than closing clinics. Want to reduce abortions? Reduce the unplanned pregnancy rate. Remember it is "Planned" Parenthood. Defunding PP is likely to increase the unplanned pregnancy rate, and the resulting abortions are likely to be carried out at greater duress to the woman and possibly even under less competent medical facilities. This is why using PP as a political punching bag does not make sense to me beyond recognition that it is a classic trolley car dilemma.
Exactly.
-
Slate might skew liberal, but the author of that post is anti-choice.
Of course, the more pertinent question (beyond one's preconceptions) is "is the author correct?" As the answer to that depends on the definition noted above, ....
You were the one who first brought up the supposed preconceptions behind the post. I'm not going to argue with you over whether it's correct. I'm not interested in talking to people who move goalposts during a conversation.
-
You were the one who first brought up the supposed preconceptions behind the post. I'm not going to argue with you over whether it's correct. I'm not interested in talking to people who move goalposts during a conversation.
It is of course your choice regarding to whom you talk and what you choose to believe. I think too many people choose to ignore information presented by an organization or person with whom they have political disagreements. And that applies to either political extreme.
-
Holy cow! There are actually 127 declared candidates for the Republican nomination! That is not a typo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/so-who-is-a-real-gop-candidate/
-
I did Economics for my undergrad and I find debates about whether the government *should* be involved in any particular area fascinating. A lot of the current attitudes on that point come from Adam Smith. He declared in "Wealth of Nations" that the natural places for government to be involved were 'providing for the national defense' and 'the construction of roads and bridges'. Few people, if any, argue that he was wrong about defense (can you imagine outsourcing the entire Army to a Corporate government contractor?) But many say the line should be drawn there.
Over time, righties have begun to think that Smith was wrong about roads and bridges. (It is widely presumed he included them because the market at the time was mostly incapable or unwilling to support the risk road and bridge construction.) Over the same period, lefties have come to look at the logical conclusion that if it is ok to build roads and bridges because the market was uncapable or unwilling to do so, it must be ok to enter any other areas the market fails to provide for. This is the key economic argument in favor of the ACA, the market either couldn't or wouldn't insure millions (I was one of them - pre-existing...) Righties look at the market and say it was failing only because a bunch of lefty regulation had them hobbled.
There is a lot more to the screaming and it is more politics than economics. I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the community...
-
lefties have come to look at the logical conclusion that if it is ok to build roads and bridges because the market was uncapable or unwilling to do so, it must be ok to enter any other areas the market fails to provide for [to the extent needed].
That is indeed a bad argument. Fortunately, one doesn't need the former to conclude the latter. I added a phrase to clarify.
-
Holy cow! There are actually 127 declared candidates for the Republican nomination! That is not a typo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/so-who-is-a-real-gop-candidate/
does anyone ever actually read my posts? ;-)
-
I added a phrase to clarify.
By "to clarify" did you mean to put words in his mouth so that you could disagree with them?
It's not clear from the context if you added them as an example of why one of the righties might assume that the lefties are so crazy, or if you added them to illustrate how entirely reasonable the lefties are being in this case. It's probably emblematic of the divide in American politics that this one could honestly go either way. People can see the same world in very different ways.
Which brings me to the side discussion above about abortion. Some people will argue that Planned Parenthood is evil because the 3% of their contacts that support abortions are 3% of the time on which they murder innocent children, while others will argue that Planned Parenthood is supporting the pro-life movement because the 97% of their contacts that reduce unwanted pregnancies are the best way to reduce the number of abortions they have to do. These people might both be conservative Christians who agree that abortions are something to be avoided at all possible, the only difference is that one actually wants to minimize them while the other occasionally murders doctors.
-
I added a phrase to clarify.
By "to clarify" did you mean to put words in his mouth so that you could disagree with them?
It's not clear from the context if you added them as an example of why one of the righties might assume that the lefties are so crazy, or if you added them to illustrate how entirely reasonable the lefties are being in this case. It's probably emblematic of the divide in American politics that this one could honestly go either way. People can see the same world in very different ways.
Which brings me to the side discussion above about abortion. Some people will argue that Planned Parenthood is evil because the 3% of their contacts that support abortions are 3% of the time on which they murder innocent children, while others will argue that Planned Parenthood is supporting the pro-life movement because the 97% of their contacts that reduce unwanted pregnancies are the best way to reduce the number of abortions they have to do. These people might both be conservative Christians who agree that abortions are something to be avoided at all possible, the only difference is that one actually wants to minimize them while the other occasionally murders doctors.
I meant the latter. I don't think any lefty in the history of the world has made the argument as he stated it. "The government should intervene wherever the market isn't making something happen" is absurdly extreme, and even if it weren't, "it's government's business to build roads and bridges" is hardly a strong justification for much of anything. If we think the government should step in when people with preexisting conditions are left to go bankrupt, our reason for thinking that is not because the government should build roads and bridges. It's just nonsense.
-
I added a phrase to clarify.
By "to clarify" did you mean to put words in his mouth so that you could disagree with them?
It's not clear from the context if you added them as an example of why one of the righties might assume that the lefties are so crazy, or if you added them to illustrate how entirely reasonable the lefties are being in this case. It's probably emblematic of the divide in American politics that this one could honestly go either way. People can see the same world in very different ways.
Which brings me to the side discussion above about abortion. Some people will argue that Planned Parenthood is evil because the 3% of their contacts that support abortions are 3% of the time on which they murder innocent children, while others will argue that Planned Parenthood is supporting the pro-life movement because the 97% of their contacts that reduce unwanted pregnancies are the best way to reduce the number of abortions they have to do. These people might both be conservative Christians who agree that abortions are something to be avoided at all possible, the only difference is that one actually wants to minimize them while the other occasionally murders doctors.
I meant the latter. I don't think any lefty in the history of the world has made the argument as he stated it. "The government should intervene wherever the market isn't making something happen" is absurdly extreme, and even if it weren't, "it's government's business to build roads and bridges" is hardly a strong justification for much of anything. If we think the government should step in when people with preexisting conditions are left to go bankrupt, our reason for thinking that is not because the government should build roads and bridges. It's just nonsense.
I'm fine with you adding the qualifier if that is where you personally are politically. I had left it vague on purpose because same as there are some righties that are more to the right than others, there are some lefties who are pretty far left. For example, I know (ok, internets only) an oddball who thinks the US should convert to communism as a means to colonize the solar system - largely because the lack of near term ROI means space investment by industry might never happen e.g. the markets either can't or won't. A fringe view, but it exists.
At any rate, Smith was neither an extremist nor an Economist (Professor of Moral Philosophy). His life's work was not "Nations" but "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" of which "Nations" is a big parenthetical to his arguments. Lots of people like to invoke his name without being informed of his intentions.
-
Holy cow! There are actually 127 declared candidates for the Republican nomination! That is not a typo.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/so-who-is-a-real-gop-candidate/
does anyone ever actually read my posts? ;-)
I saw yours, but I thought it was a typo.
-
The last time I checked, I would have voted for Rand Paul. I will check again in a lot of months to see who I agree with then.
-
I added a phrase to clarify.
By "to clarify" did you mean to put words in his mouth so that you could disagree with them?
It's not clear from the context if you added them as an example of why one of the righties might assume that the lefties are so crazy, or if you added them to illustrate how entirely reasonable the lefties are being in this case. It's probably emblematic of the divide in American politics that this one could honestly go either way. People can see the same world in very different ways.
Which brings me to the side discussion above about abortion. Some people will argue that Planned Parenthood is evil because the 3% of their contacts that support abortions are 3% of the time on which they murder innocent children, while others will argue that Planned Parenthood is supporting the pro-life movement because the 97% of their contacts that reduce unwanted pregnancies are the best way to reduce the number of abortions they have to do. These people might both be conservative Christians who agree that abortions are something to be avoided at all possible, the only difference is that one actually wants to minimize them while the other occasionally murders doctors.
I meant the latter. I don't think any lefty in the history of the world has made the argument as he stated it. "The government should intervene wherever the market isn't making something happen" is absurdly extreme, and even if it weren't, "it's government's business to build roads and bridges" is hardly a strong justification for much of anything. If we think the government should step in when people with preexisting conditions are left to go bankrupt, our reason for thinking that is not because the government should build roads and bridges. It's just nonsense.
Indeed. Or put a different way, liberals tend to believe that it's reasonable that people may choose to have the government intervene in some market failures, but that's very different from the argument that the government should intervene in all market failures. Maybe some extreme communists or socialists believe that, but hardly anyone in the US does. (Note: Bernie Sanders, a moderate liberal who calls himself a socialist, doesn't even come close to meeting that criteria!)
Not to mention, the justification that intervention is okay "because the government should build roads and bridges" is circular: it begs the question "why should the government build roads and bridges?" I prefer to state the justification as it being reasonable for the government to intervene in order to compensate for externalities (see also: Tragedy of the Commons).
-
I still don't understand where the 'failure' lies, except with the immediate remarks to the press right after the attacks. Are you referring to the attack itself of afterwards?
Referring to the dereliction of duty preceding the terrorist attack (ignoring safety concerns from Ambassador Stevens).
Referring to the dereliction of duty during the terrorist attack (stand down orders).
Referring to the dereliction of duty after the terrorist attack (the cover up lies, blaming a video, lack of compassion for the families involved).
It's a long sad list. Remember the hearing they had where Clinton blurted out, "What difference does it make?" It certainly made a difference to Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty and their families. It was all over the news.
The thing I don't understand about Benghazi is that if those things are true -- and although I didn't pay close attention to the issue, I don't doubt that they are -- why weren't the Republicans (with their majority in both houses of Congress) able to accomplish anything beyond whining about it?
-
I still don't understand where the 'failure' lies, except with the immediate remarks to the press right after the attacks. Are you referring to the attack itself of afterwards?
Referring to the dereliction of duty preceding the terrorist attack (ignoring safety concerns from Ambassador Stevens).
Referring to the dereliction of duty during the terrorist attack (stand down orders).
Referring to the dereliction of duty after the terrorist attack (the cover up lies, blaming a video, lack of compassion for the families involved).
It's a long sad list. Remember the hearing they had where Clinton blurted out, "What difference does it make?" It certainly made a difference to Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty and their families. It was all over the news.
The thing I don't understand about Benghazi is that if those things are true -- and although I didn't pay close attention to the issue, I don't doubt that they are -- why weren't the Republicans (with their majority in both houses of Congress) able to accomplish anything beyond whining about it?
Didn't the Republicans deny the Administration's request for more funding for embassy security before the attack?
Let's pretend that we know it was possible with the information available at the time to know that an attack was likely enough to warrant action, and outweighed the risks associated with taking that action (moving resources from one place to another makes the first place more vulnerable, etc). Well then it's sad that 4 people died unnecessarily.
But is that more or less bad than hundreds of thousands being killed in unnecessary wars, like in Iraq?
Is that more or less bad than torturing hundreds of people you knew to be innocent, and continuing to lock them up for your entire term in office for political reasons?
Is that more or less bad than being told "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" and that "his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America,"" and not preventing 9/11?
Strange that you aren't talking about these other missteps.
-
I still don't understand where the 'failure' lies, except with the immediate remarks to the press right after the attacks. Are you referring to the attack itself of afterwards?
Referring to the dereliction of duty preceding the terrorist attack (ignoring safety concerns from Ambassador Stevens).
Referring to the dereliction of duty during the terrorist attack (stand down orders).
Referring to the dereliction of duty after the terrorist attack (the cover up lies, blaming a video, lack of compassion for the families involved).
Dereliction of duty is for service members who willfully refuse to obey a direct order from the C.O. or who woefully and intentionally do not perform their duties. It doesn't apply here to the S. of State here. Sometimes bad stuff happens, instigated by violent individuals and groups.
I'd say that her handling following the attack was inept. I'm less inclined to assign blame for not giving more security resources to an already highly militarized embassy - every commander, every police chief, ever general wants more security resources.
I believe part of the answer is that Clinton and Obama's DOJ are stonewalling. The Benghazi scandal is related to Hilary's e-mail server scandal, which has been in the news more.
why is everything a "scandal" these days? If she had actually caused the attacks, that would be scandal. As it is I'd be more inclined to call it a blundering, embarassing response to a tragic event.
-
Wow! I'm totally amazed the Bernie Sanders is leading this poll. Why has anyone on this site even heard of him? I guess we aren't following the low information diet. I must admit I recognize the name but that is all.
Looking forward the Republican debates on Thursday. Probably the first full length reality news show I will have watch in a long time. I'm watching primarily to see Trump center stage and hoping he just knocks the tar out of the field.
-
Low information diet does not mean burying one's head in the sand. I agree most closely with Bernie Sanders' political views, therefore I selected him as the candidate I would be most likely to vote for (especially in the primaries. In the general election, I'll just vote for the Democratic candidate, but I would be less enthusiastic about a vote for Hillary). As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
-
For your enjoyment:
(http://)
-
For your enjoyment:
(http://)
I actually laughed out loud.
-
. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why? I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.
EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.
-
DH and I have been discussing candidates for the 2016 presidential election. I'm interested to see which way the MMM community is trending.
Hard to say since we don't know who will all drop out of the race between now and then. But is anyone surprised that Bernie "Socialist" Sanders and Hillary "Benghazi" Clinton are the favorites here?
Honestly, I AM surprised.
I was, too, when I first arrived in Mustache Land. Most here lean so far to the left. It's like those old V8 commercials. When it comes to personal finance, it's a neat place to be. When it comes to politics it's like being ported to Bizarro World.
As the saying goes, "reality has a liberal bias." I think most of us who agree with the "low information diet" have simply failed to move right along with the rest of the country because we're missing out on the propaganda.
I think the country is actually moving left and that is the main reason Hillary will win the election - plain old demographics.
I also think that there's less common ground between the left and the right nowadays. Mainly because of Fox News and daytime talk radio have driven conservatives to be much more to the right than they used to be. Either that, or the conservatives were always like this and Fox and talk radio have just given them a megaphone.
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
Whoever gets elected president, I hope they do some serious work to dial down spending and increase taxes. That's the only way we're gonna put a dent in the national debt. Maybe we should all ticket-write-in MMM so he can kick some financial @ss at a national level!
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
-
. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why? I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.
EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.
I don't find it surprising at all. Here's why:
First, I would like to posit that, although the right likes to see itself as fiscally conservative, in practice I do not see this as the case. I will assume that most conservatives will simply dismiss this out of hand, but there is ample evidence to support it.
Second, MMM disparages blind consumerism. Which could also be cast as a healthy skepticism about free market capitalism at all costs.
Finally, MMM's philosophy includes a strong message about treading as lightly on the earth as possible, and not destroying it through wanton consumption of natural resources.
All three of these aspects of mustachianism, I would argue, align more closely with the left than with the right. So, to me, it isn't surprising that the participants on this forum tend to lean more left.
-
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.
If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.
-
. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why? I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.
EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.
Did you see the poll about education level here on the forum. That pretty much explains it.
-
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time.
Making no statement on whether the country is trending left or right, there's a few reasons the House, Senate, and most state legislatures have Republican majorities.
First, Democratic legislators are more concentrated in a smaller number of states. The total number of state legislators is pretty close to 50/50 even though Republicans have many more majorities in states.
Second, Republicans tend to have higher voter turnout in midterm elections. Democrats picked up seats in the House and Senate in presidential election years of 2008 and 2012, and lost seats in the midterms.
Third, the 2014 election was a particularly bad one for Democratic senators. They had been elected during a high turnout, strongly Democratic wave, their reelection was during a low-turnout midterm, and were defending 21 seats while Republicans were only defending 15, and more of the Republican seats were safe ones.
-
As the country as a whole trends left, the conservatives can feel the ground slipping out from underneath them and they aren't too happy about it.
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
Everyone thinks they are in the "silent majority". Everyone thinks they are the reasonable people. Everyone thinks that they are close to the moderate viewpoint. Everyone is wrong.
This is a bias of worldview. You can't both be correct, but you both can be incorrect.
-
First, I would like to posit that, although the right likes to see itself as fiscally conservative, in practice I do not see this as the case. I will assume that most conservatives will simply dismiss this out of hand, but there is ample evidence to support it.
Second, MMM disparages blind consumerism. Which could also be cast as a healthy skepticism about free market capitalism at all costs.
Finally, MMM's philosophy includes a strong message about treading as lightly on the earth as possible, and not destroying it through wanton consumption of natural resources.
All three of these aspects of mustachianism, I would argue, align more closely with the left than with the right. So, to me, it isn't surprising that the participants on this forum tend to lean more left.
That looks like you interpreting MMM's points through your worldview. While this might be a valid observation as to why this forum leans left, I can't really gain any knowledge from it because I can see your bias here, and I can't really know if it colors your opinion here or not.
-
. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why? I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.
EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.
Did you see the poll about education level here on the forum. That pretty much explains it.
No, care to link it?
EDIT: If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/13/are-conservatives-dumber-than-liberals
"Comparing strong Republicans with strong Democrats, Carl finds that Republicans have a 5.48 IQ point advantage over Democrats. Broadening party affiliation to include moderate to merely leaning respondents still results in a Republican advantage of 3.47 IQ points and 2.47 IQ points respectively. Carl reconciles his findings with the social science literature that reports that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives by proposing that Americans with classically liberal beliefs are even smarter."
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
-
If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.
He didn't say anything about intelligence levels, that was all you.
He said more highly educated, and on that point he is correct; liberals tend to have a slightly higher average level of education. Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.
-
. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why? I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.
EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.
I don't find it surprising at all. Here's why:
First, I would like to posit that, although the right likes to see itself as fiscally conservative, in practice I do not see this as the case. I will assume that most conservatives will simply dismiss this out of hand, but there is ample evidence to support it.
Second, MMM disparages blind consumerism. Which could also be cast as a healthy skepticism about free market capitalism at all costs.
Finally, MMM's philosophy includes a strong message about treading as lightly on the earth as possible, and not destroying it through wanton consumption of natural resources.
All three of these aspects of mustachianism, I would argue, align more closely with the left than with the right. So, to me, it isn't surprising that the participants on this forum tend to lean more left.
I suspect that the small subset of "financially-minded" people in the ER community are more progressive/perhaps more open-minded than what we are assuming the average is. I base this speculation on the way MMM/ERE seems to be treated every time it appears in a mainstream media outlet, that mix of skepticism and dismissal for being "too radical".
I think the answer may be some combination of that and and Kris' points 2/3 above.
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
-
If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.
He didn't say anything about intelligence levels, that was all you.
He said more highly educated, and on that point he is correct; liberals tend to have a slightly higher average level of education. Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.
I think that would depend a great deal on who you ask, and how we define "education".
-
If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.
He didn't say anything about intelligence levels, that was all you.
He said more highly educated, and on that point he is correct; liberals tend to have a slightly higher average level of education. Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.
I think that would depend a great deal on who you ask, and how we define "education".
What would depend on who you ask? Whether liberals have a slightly higher level of education on average? Or whether it's a different discussion than the correlation of intelligence and education? I'm sure it's easy enough to find statistics proving or disproving the former; the latter is just plain true on its face. I'm not sure any of it depends on "who you ask."
-
Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.
I think that would depend a great deal on who you ask, and how we define "education".
And how one defines and measures intelligence.
-
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.
If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.
. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still, it would have been all Republican. The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
-
They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still, it would have been all Republican. The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
There was good reasons for that.
-
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.
If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.
. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still, it would have been all Republican. The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
You may want to review your history. The Constitution didn't give the state legislatures the power to appoint delegates - the Constitution gave legislatures the power to choose how to select the electors. Even in the first election, six of ten states that actually selected electors used the popular vote.
-
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.
If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.
. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still, it would have been all Republican. The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
You may want to review your history. The Constitution didn't give the state legislatures the power to appoint delegates - the Constitution gave legislatures the power to choose how to select the electors.
This is true, but I think that he was referring to the Seventeenth Amendment, wherein the US Senate was elected by direct vote as opposed to appointed by state legislators under the original wording of the Constitution. Although if correct, he didn't put it well. The electoral college is a mirror of congress, but is not actually composed of members of congress. I've run into this mistaken belief so often, I basicly assume most people believe it until they prove otherwise.
Even in the first election, six of ten states that actually selected electors used the popular vote.
Yes, six out of 13 bothered to actually follow the electoral process defined in the Constitution they just ratified. Under half. While three didn't bother with electors at all. It's an enormous irony that the first POTUS under the new constitution was functionally appointed, not popularly elected. Most Americans are taught that Washington won the electoral college by unanimous vote, which is factually correct. Almost none are taught that the properly elected electors didn't even manage a proper quorum. If there were a proper vote of the public, there is a decent chance John Adams would have been the first POTUS.
-
well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican? I think the right will rise up come general election time. A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates. Conservatives are done with that.
Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.
If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.
. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still, it would have been all Republican. The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
You may want to review your history. The Constitution didn't give the state legislatures the power to appoint delegates - the Constitution gave legislatures the power to choose how to select the electors.
This is true, but I think that he was referring to the Seventeenth Amendment, wherein the US Senate was elected by direct vote as opposed to appointed by state legislators under the original wording of the Constitution. Although if correct, he didn't put it well. The electoral college is a mirror of congress, but is not actually composed of members of congress. I've run into this mistaken belief so often, I basicly assume most people believe it until they prove otherwise.
I don't think he was talking about the Senate because he was talking about the popular vote and the electoral college. In any case, he was mistaken about something.
Even in the first election, six of ten states that actually selected electors used the popular vote.
Yes, six out of 13 bothered to actually follow the electoral process defined in the Constitution they just ratified. Under half. While three didn't bother with electors at all. It's an enormous irony that the first POTUS under the new constitution was functionally appointed, not popularly elected. Most Americans are taught that Washington won the electoral college by unanimous vote, which is factually correct. Almost none are taught that the properly elected electors didn't even manage a proper quorum. If there were a proper vote of the public, there is a decent chance John Adams would have been the first POTUS.
Well, there were only 11 states that had ratified the constitution at that point, so 6 out of 11.
What are you talking about when you say "the properly elected electors didn't even manage a proper quorum?"
Edit: Changed "10" to "11." New York had ratified the Constitution, but didn't select electors.
-
The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?
And what "2 elections" are you talking about? Like 2014, where the Republicans took back the Senate? That one? That's the one the "Republican base simply sat out of"?
Do you *really* think any of your post has a passing acquaintance with reality? If so, why? And if not, why did you post it?
-
. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.
As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why? I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.
EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.
I don't find it surprising at all. Here's why:
First, I would like to posit that, although the right likes to see itself as fiscally conservative, in practice I do not see this as the case. I will assume that most conservatives will simply dismiss this out of hand, but there is ample evidence to support it.
Second, MMM disparages blind consumerism. Which could also be cast as a healthy skepticism about free market capitalism at all costs.
Finally, MMM's philosophy includes a strong message about treading as lightly on the earth as possible, and not destroying it through wanton consumption of natural resources.
All three of these aspects of mustachianism, I would argue, align more closely with the left than with the right. So, to me, it isn't surprising that the participants on this forum tend to lean more left.
I suspect that the small subset of "financially-minded" people in the ER community are more progressive/perhaps more open-minded than what we are assuming the average is. I base this speculation on the way MMM/ERE seems to be treated every time it appears in a mainstream media outlet, that mix of skepticism and dismissal for being "too radical".
I think the answer may be some combination of that and and Kris' points 2/3 above.
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
VerticalMode, I'd just like to take a moment and express my appreciation for your reasonableness and clarity of thought. Thank you.
-
They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still, it would have been all Republican. The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
A constitutional amendment is among the hardest of things to pass - the framers intended it to be that way so that it could only be changed when there was broad support.
If the constitution hadn't been amended, blacks and women also wouldn't have been able to vote. Just sayin'...
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.
State St Popn St Popn D1 St Popn D2
Alabama 4,822,023 0 0
Alaska 731,449 0 0
Arizona 6,553,255 0 0
Arkansas 2,949,131 0 0
California 38,041,430 38,041,430 38,041,430
Colorado 5,187,582 5,187,582 0
Connecticut 3,590,347 3,590,347 3,590,347
Delaware 917,092 917,092 917,092
Florida 19,317,568 19,317,568 0
Georgia 9,919,945 0 0
Hawaii 1,392,313 1,392,313 1,392,313
Idaho 1,595,728 0 0
Illinois 12,875,255 12,875,255 0
Indiana 6,537,334 6,537,334 0
Iowa 3,074,186 0 0
Kansas 2,885,905 0 0
Kentucky 4,380,415 0 0
Louisiana 4,601,893 0 0
Maine 1,329,192 1,329,192 0
Maryland 5,884,563 5,884,563 5,884,563
Massachusetts 6,646,144 6,646,144 6,646,144
Michigan 9,883,360 9,883,360 9,883,360
Minnesota 5,379,139 5,379,139 5,379,139
Mississippi 2,984,926 0 0
Missouri 6,021,988 6,021,988 0
Montana 1,005,141 1,005,141 0
Nebraska 1,855,525 0 0
Nevada 2,758,931 2,758,931 0
New Hampshire 1,320,718 1,320,718 0
New Jersey 8,864,590 8,864,590 8,864,590
New Mexico 2,085,538 2,085,538 2,085,538
New York 19,570,261 19,570,261 19,570,261
North Carolina 9,752,073 0 0
North Dakota 699,628 699,628 0
Ohio 11,544,225 11,544,225 0
Oklahoma 3,814,820 0 0
Oregon 3,899,353 3,899,353 3,899,353
Pennsylvania 12,763,536 12,763,536 0
Rhode Island 1,050,292 1,050,292 1,050,292
South Carolina 4,723,723 0 0
South Dakota 833,354 0 0
Tennessee 6,456,243 0 0
Texas 26,059,203 0 0
Utah 2,855,287 0 0
Vermont 626,011 626,011 626,011
Virginia 8,185,867 8,185,867 8,185,867
Washington 6,897,012 6,897,012 6,897,012
West Virginia 1,855,413 1,855,413 0
Wisconsin 5,726,398 5,726,398 0
Wyoming 576,412 0 0
Total Democratic: 334,769,533 ~53.5%
Total Republican: 291,793,901 ~46.5%
Democratic Senators: 46
Republican Senators 54
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).
-
Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.
-
The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?
Largely irrelevant, IMO. If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not. This is a tragedy of the commons thing. If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.
...
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).
That's fine, but not what you said. You said Republicans had the advantage in the Senate because they tend to come from really small states. Unless "really small" is like the 20th- lowest in population, then that's not the explanation. Saying that Republican senators on average represent fewer voters is different.
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.
State St Popn St Popn D1 St Popn D2
Alabama 4,822,023 0 0
Alaska 731,449 0 0
Arizona 6,553,255 0 0
Arkansas 2,949,131 0 0
California 38,041,430 38,041,430 38,041,430
Colorado 5,187,582 5,187,582 0
Connecticut 3,590,347 3,590,347 3,590,347
Delaware 917,092 917,092 917,092
Florida 19,317,568 19,317,568 0
Georgia 9,919,945 0 0
Hawaii 1,392,313 1,392,313 1,392,313
Idaho 1,595,728 0 0
Illinois 12,875,255 12,875,255 0
Indiana 6,537,334 6,537,334 0
Iowa 3,074,186 0 0
Kansas 2,885,905 0 0
Kentucky 4,380,415 0 0
Louisiana 4,601,893 0 0
Maine 1,329,192 1,329,192 0
Maryland 5,884,563 5,884,563 5,884,563
Massachusetts 6,646,144 6,646,144 6,646,144
Michigan 9,883,360 9,883,360 9,883,360
Minnesota 5,379,139 5,379,139 5,379,139
Mississippi 2,984,926 0 0
Missouri 6,021,988 6,021,988 0
Montana 1,005,141 1,005,141 0
Nebraska 1,855,525 0 0
Nevada 2,758,931 2,758,931 0
New Hampshire 1,320,718 1,320,718 0
New Jersey 8,864,590 8,864,590 8,864,590
New Mexico 2,085,538 2,085,538 2,085,538
New York 19,570,261 19,570,261 19,570,261
North Carolina 9,752,073 0 0
North Dakota 699,628 699,628 0
Ohio 11,544,225 11,544,225 0
Oklahoma 3,814,820 0 0
Oregon 3,899,353 3,899,353 3,899,353
Pennsylvania 12,763,536 12,763,536 0
Rhode Island 1,050,292 1,050,292 1,050,292
South Carolina 4,723,723 0 0
South Dakota 833,354 0 0
Tennessee 6,456,243 0 0
Texas 26,059,203 0 0
Utah 2,855,287 0 0
Vermont 626,011 626,011 626,011
Virginia 8,185,867 8,185,867 8,185,867
Washington 6,897,012 6,897,012 6,897,012
West Virginia 1,855,413 1,855,413 0
Wisconsin 5,726,398 5,726,398 0
Wyoming 576,412 0 0
Total Democratic: 334,769,533 ~53.5%
Total Republican: 291,793,901 ~46.5%
Democratic Senators: 46
Republican Senators 54
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).
Wow that was a lot of work! I have no ideas what those numbers mean or what you were trying to demonstrate statically? In our winner take all political game you've shown that the Republicans are winning. That is a trend likely to continue.
The original discussion on this subtopic was on left vs. right so simply juxtaposing Dem and Rep isn't entirely accurate. For instance, I'm Libertarian (both IQ scores and education much higher for our group) and could either be classified and ultra conservative or ultra liberal. Or you could just say we are realists without party affiliation.
Many people who vote as Democrats are very conservative. Many Catholics in big cities have traditionally voted Democrat even though they agree with most every Republican social policy. They have done this with regard to Union affiliation. Hispanics as a group can easily be termed conservative in that they are generally more Catholic. Their voting has trended Democrat.
It is also a widely accepted truism that as people age they become more conservative and more likely to vote Republican. So yeah, we are in an aging population with a declining Union workforce. (I also might mention that at one time many Democrats were ultra conservative. Dixicrats ruled for a long time but party affiliations have changed drastically in my lifetime)
Is it just me or is Thursday gonna be a huge show? They should put that shit on pay per view.
Imagine a stage full of ass wipes competing for title of biggest ass wipe with Trump leading the parade. I can just see Huckabee in his grandfather voice ---- "not only is global warming a liberal lie but data shows that the earth has had much higher CO2 levels when dinosaurs roamed the earth-- and that was just 10,000 years ago -- and we used them as farm animals" All other candidates nod their head in agreement.
When will the Republicans wise up? All's they need to do is admit climate change, roll over on Abortion and it would be game set match.
I can't decide if it is more embarrassing to be a "climate change is just a big lie" Republican or a "we think violent criminals are just oppressed and misunderstood" Democrat.
What a country!
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
No, still true.
...
Total Democratic: 334,769,533 ~53.5%
Total Republican: 291,793,901 ~46.5%
Democratic Senators: 46
Republican Senators 54
Have to give this one to beltim, as the two "10, 10, and 10" claims are supported by the data in forummm's post.
There is a separate argument one could make (and many have) about current proportional representation (or lack thereof) in the House of Representatives.
But the Senate, from its inception, was designed specifically not to be representative of overall population (as flyingcircle noted). E.g., see http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm.
-
The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?
Largely irrelevant, IMO. If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not. This is a tragedy of the commons thing. If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.
Crap no! I live in a rural Republican area. Most of the welfare, social security, Medicare, Government employees, military, school teachers vote Republican. Hell we even have the "Creation Museum" here where you can go and see for yourself that evolution is a lie and the sedimentary record was all laid down by God just before he wrote the Bible.
We take and take as many free televisions around here as possible. Every Medicare/Republican around here has a standing monthly $150 doctor visit to make sure they are still fat, have high blood pressure and are diabetic. Shit their not paying for it and it gives them something to look forward to.
We even use our food stamps to buy jumbo shrimp to use for fishing bait.
What a country!
-
Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.
No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen. As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state. You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation? That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.
I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either.
American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress. I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote. Ditto for the stupid electoral college. It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.
But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.
...
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).
That's fine, but not what you said. You said Republicans had the advantage in the Senate because they tend to come from really small states. Unless "really small" is like the 20th- lowest in population, then that's not the explanation. Saying that Republican senators on average represent fewer voters is different.
No, I said "The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states." My analysis is enough to support that.
The 10 state analysis is a quick idea, but not exactly what I said. And is an arbitrary number. The large states are still disproportionately represented by Democrats, and the large states represented by Democrats are much larger than the large states represented by Republicans. If you go with the largest 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, or 14 states, there are more Democratic senators. You just chose 10 (one of only 3 numbers missing from that list). And all of the missing ones (2, 8, and 10) still have more population being represented by Democrats cumulatively. CA has 12 million more people than TX. The differences are large with the bigger states.
The top 14 states have 200 million people and (using the method of counting each person twice) are represented roughly 253 million D to 147 million R.
-
Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.
No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen. As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state. You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation? That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.
I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either.
American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress. I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote. Ditto for the stupid electoral college. It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.
But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.
And meanwhile DC has no voting members of the House or Senate, but Congress controls their governance more than any state.
-
The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.
You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true. The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.
No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.
...
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).
That's fine, but not what you said. You said Republicans had the advantage in the Senate because they tend to come from really small states. Unless "really small" is like the 20th- lowest in population, then that's not the explanation. Saying that Republican senators on average represent fewer voters is different.
No, I said "The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states." My analysis is enough to support that.
The 10 state analysis is a quick idea, but not exactly what I said. And is an arbitrary number.
Maybe we're just disagreeing about what "really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats" means then. There are just as many Democratic Senators as Republicans in the 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, smallest states by population. At no point do Republicans have more than 2 more Senators than Democrats until you get to the 18th state.
Incidentally, showing the Democratic Senators tend to come from the largest states doesn't prove anything about whether Republican Senators come from really small states. And, a majority of the population effect that you're describing comes from the fact that CA has two Democratic senators. If that went to 1/1, the average number of people represented by Republicans versus Democrats would be within 10% of each other.
-
Sidebar: the single-axis left vs right is a very convenient tool of discussion for a system dominated by two parties. However, I think among just the people participating in this forum it is clear that the mix of issues in politics does not fit that one-dimensional view. I think it is a two-axis spectrum:
1. Social Issues
2. Financial Issues (and by extension size of Government)
Returning to the point about this forum leaning left, at a personal level many of us lean left on social issues be it for left or libertarian reasons. While we are largely pretty conservative in our personal finances, there is much more spread among us in axis 2 as it applies to our society.
Philosophical points on republicanism vs federalism aside, economic understanding is an overlay of axis 2, which boils down to a Milton Friedman vs Keynes spectrum, or more broadly if a person believes that microeconomics principals apply at the macroeconomic level (and yes, I am showing some of my own bias there and doing great injustice to economists... which is exactly what reducing things to an axis does).
-
Oh, and if you look at how many votes current Senators actually got, it's pretty close to 50/50, with a slight advantage to Democrats (51/49). There are a bunch of caveats about that, though it's still pretty interesting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html
-
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government. Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.
That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it.
The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles. I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.
-
The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles. I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.
As a first guess, I'd have to say there is a pretty huge opportunity cost to defense spending. Remember, much military hardware is often built to be blown up or otherwise expended with very few opportunities for alternate uses.
-
Maybe we're just disagreeing about what "really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats" means then. There are just as many Democratic Senators as Republicans in the 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, smallest states by population. At no point do Republicans have more than 2 more Senators than Democrats until you get to the 18th state.
Incidentally, showing the Democratic Senators tend to come from the largest states doesn't prove anything about whether Republican Senators come from really small states. And, a majority of the population effect that you're describing comes from the fact that CA has two Democratic senators. If that went to 1/1, the average number of people represented by Republicans versus Democrats would be within 10% of each other.
Maybe the arbitrary cutoffs is the discrepancy. That and doing simple counts instead of tallying population (which was the point I was making). If you tally the populations (using same methodology as above) for the smallest 5 states for example it's 5M R vs 2M D. For 20 states, it's 43.5M R vs 21.1M D. For 30 it's 100M vs 52M. There are certainly places where the numbers are about even in the smaller states (e.g. 10 states), but that's why I said "tend".
I do think it's interesting (although maybe not useful) that the states that have 2/3 of the entire nation's population are so skewed (2/3 to 1/3). Yet another reason the primary system that focuses on states that are tiny, rural, homogeneous, and very unrepresentative of the nation leads to candidates focusing on issues that are not of interest to so many people.
Oh, and if you look at how many votes current Senators actually got, it's pretty close to 50/50, with a slight advantage to Democrats (51/49). There are a bunch of caveats about that, though it's still pretty interesting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html
Yeah, the caveats are too large to really pay too much attention to that. There are huge differences in the number of people who could be voting in certain states, and the 3 tier rotation makes the comparison between mid-year and presidential cycles without adjusting for that. And a lot of states had races that were not competitive. So it's not a reliable number.
-
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government. Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.
That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it.
The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles. I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.
Why is it that "government can't create jobs" unless they are military jobs? I'm not saying you hold those two views. It's just commonly repeated by people who want to spend huge amounts on the military and not much on anything else.
Since military spending is generally to destroy things, it would be a better investment to invest in things that produce greater economic output. For example, investing in infrastructure (universal gigabit Internet, roads, etc), research, education, etc. So while "defense" could be worthwhile spending money on as it does benefit us, it's not a very useful "investment" beyond the level necessary to sustain our independence as a nation. I would actually say that money "invested" in the military has been a net drain on resources since we tend to waste those excess resources in a way that further decreases our economic output (say by creating terrorism).
-
I think its funny that you guys apparently believe that votes matter. Its all about who writes the checks, not who votes for what.
-
I think its funny that you guys apparently believe that votes matter. Its all about who writes the checks, not who votes for what.
I generally agree. Because our choices on people to vote for are controlled by the people who write the checks.
-
Oh, and if you look at how many votes current Senators actually got, it's pretty close to 50/50, with a slight advantage to Democrats (51/49). There are a bunch of caveats about that, though it's still pretty interesting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html
Well the Republicans would have had another Senator at the last turn if that idiot Republican hadn't said it is impossible for a woman to get pregnant from being raped.
-
Sidebar: the single-axis left vs right is a very convenient tool of discussion for a system dominated by two parties. However, I think among just the people participating in this forum it is clear that the mix of issues in politics does not fit that one-dimensional view. I think it is a two-axis spectrum:
1. Social Issues
2. Financial Issues (and by extension size of Government)
Returning to the point about this forum leaning left, at a personal level many of us lean left on social issues be it for left or libertarian reasons. While we are largely pretty conservative in our personal finances, there is much more spread among us in axis 2 as it applies to our society.
Philosophical points on republicanism vs federalism aside, economic understanding is an overlay of axis 2, which boils down to a Milton Friedman vs Keynes spectrum, or more broadly if a person believes that microeconomics principals apply at the macroeconomic level (and yes, I am showing some of my own bias there and doing great injustice to economists... which is exactly what reducing things to an axis does).
Yeah that is pretty much the rub ---- I couldn't give a rip about gays or abortions but at the same time believe in reducing government spending. Of course as one poster noted ---- the Republicans are all show and no go on this. They are freaking terrible at budgeting which might be expected from people who can't understand the simple numbers behind global climate change.
So yeah -- Many of us are stuck and have to pick the least of the crazies. Luckily in the Presidential Election there is always a Libertarian to chose from.
-
The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?
Largely irrelevant, IMO. If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not. This is a tragedy of the commons thing. If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.
Crap no! I live in a rural Republican area. Most of the welfare, social security, Medicare, Government employees, military, school teachers vote Republican.
then why did you contrast "Republican" and "welfare" in your post ...
oh never mind, I give up.
-
The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?
Largely irrelevant, IMO. If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not. This is a tragedy of the commons thing. If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.
Crap no! I live in a rural Republican area. Most of the welfare, social security, Medicare, Government employees, military, school teachers vote Republican.
then why did you contrast "Republican" and "welfare" in your post ...
oh never mind, I give up.
Waste of time. All the process of gubmint these days is about looting the public coffers and delivering spoils to your backers. We can put labels on this activity or not, but it boils down to the same thing no matter which legislator is delivering what to which recipient.
-
Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.
No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen. As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state. You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation? That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.
I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either.
American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress. I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote. Ditto for the stupid electoral college. It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.
But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.
There is already a body that votes based on population; we don't need two.
What would be the point of the Senate being a smaller version of the House? You might as well get rid of it altogether then. But the fact remains that representatives vote based on the needs and desires of their constituents. Most federal bills affect states disproportionately for good or for bad. And Reps fight to bring home jobs to their States, but what happens if a bill comes to the floor that is favorable to large population states and not favorable to small population states? One would hope that Reps. would not harm small states out of compassion, but there wouldn't be anything to stop Large State Reps to push a bill through for their own good and the detriment of small states. Without the Senate, small States would have essentially no voice in what can happen in their own land by federal powers.
It is not antiquated. It is in fact, the only thing that keeps the small States sovereign from larger ones.
-
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government. Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.
That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it.
The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles. I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.
Why is it that "government can't create jobs" unless they are military jobs? I'm not saying you hold those two views. It's just commonly repeated by people who want to spend huge amounts on the military and not much on anything else.
Since military spending is generally to destroy things, it would be a better investment to invest in things that produce greater economic output. For example, investing in infrastructure (universal gigabit Internet, roads, etc), research, education, etc. So while "defense" could be worthwhile spending money on as it does benefit us, it's not a very useful "investment" beyond the level necessary to sustain our independence as a nation. I would actually say that money "invested" in the military has been a net drain on resources since we tend to waste those excess resources in a way that further decreases our economic output (say by creating terrorism).
Chris22, the part that I've bolded is what I get hung up on. An example of this would be Senators insisting on purchasing tanks that the military doesn't want or need, because tanks are manufactured in their district:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html
I'm harping on tanks, but they're hardly the only culprit here. Just an example.
Your point about defense being one of the primary charges of the Government (and therefore one of its priorities) is well taken. My issue is with those who resist the notion that we could be more efficient in how we go about doing this and insist that we continue to devote resources even where they aren't needed (Especially when those who use them explicitly say so).
Forummm, that's what the "...expense of investment in other areas" I was referring to is. It's no secret that our digital and physical infrastructure could use some design and construction funding. Understanding these things as an "investment" vs. "spending" is the first step toward galvanizing public opinion on making them a priority and fixing them. Government spending can absolutely create non-military jobs - mine, for starters.
Both of you touch on the notion of spending under the umbrella of "defense" creating other externalities in the economy. Perhaps directing some of the surplus tank funding to DARPA, research grants, or similar kinds of things, might pay more dividends and preserve some of those white-collar opportunities you mention, Chris? IIRC, DARPA research gave us the Internet (or was that Al Gore?), NASA scientists working toward the Apollo program gave us WD-40, etc. To the extent that we could allocate these resources where they'd produce positive externalities, I could be OK with that.
-
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government. Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.
That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it.
The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles. I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.
Why is it that "government can't create jobs" unless they are military jobs? I'm not saying you hold those two views. It's just commonly repeated by people who want to spend huge amounts on the military and not much on anything else.
Since military spending is generally to destroy things, it would be a better investment to invest in things that produce greater economic output. For example, investing in infrastructure (universal gigabit Internet, roads, etc), research, education, etc. So while "defense" could be worthwhile spending money on as it does benefit us, it's not a very useful "investment" beyond the level necessary to sustain our independence as a nation. I would actually say that money "invested" in the military has been a net drain on resources since we tend to waste those excess resources in a way that further decreases our economic output (say by creating terrorism).
Chris22, the part that I've bolded is what I get hung up on. An example of this would be Senators insisting on purchasing tanks that the military doesn't want or need, because tanks are manufactured in their district:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html
I'm harping on tanks, but they're hardly the only culprit here. Just an example.
Your point about defense being one of the primary charges of the Government (and therefore one of its priorities) is well taken. My issue is with those who resist the notion that we could be more efficient in how we go about doing this and insist that we continue to devote resources even where they aren't needed (Especially when those who use them explicitly say so).
Forummm, that's what the "...expense of investment in other areas" I was referring to is. It's no secret that our digital and physical infrastructure could use some design and construction funding. Understanding these things as an "investment" vs. "spending" is the first step toward galvanizing public opinion on making them a priority and fixing them. Government spending can absolutely create non-military jobs - mine, for starters.
Both of you touch on the notion of spending under the umbrella of "defense" creating other externalities in the economy. Perhaps directing some of the surplus tank funding to DARPA, research grants, or similar kinds of things, might pay more dividends and preserve some of those white-collar opportunities you mention, Chris? IIRC, DARPA research gave us the Internet (or was that Al Gore?), NASA scientists working toward the Apollo program gave us WD-40, etc. To the extent that we could allocate these resources where they'd produce positive externalities, I could be OK with that.
100% with you. The right way to do it is to identify stupid programs or purchases that we can do without. The wrong way is to cut X% of all budgets or other across-the-board measures that don't make sense. I also think that there can be a lot done on the manpower side as far as realigning retirement programs, etc, to make them more advantageous for both the military member and the country (ie, no reason to have a pension that goes from 0% vesting to ~50% vesting at year 20 which is an arbitrary line; scale it up by year, or do something else that aligns manpower needs with retention.)
-
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government. Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.
That's true, but the national library system is also in the Constitution. I typically don't see many fiscal conservatives arguing in favor of the public library system on either a local or national level.
-
Sidebar: the single-axis left vs right is a very convenient tool of discussion for a system dominated by two parties. However, I think among just the people participating in this forum it is clear that the mix of issues in politics does not fit that one-dimensional view. I think it is a two-axis spectrum:
1. Social Issues
2. Financial Issues (and by extension size of Government)
Returning to the point about this forum leaning left, at a personal level many of us lean left on social issues be it for left or libertarian reasons. While we are largely pretty conservative in our personal finances, there is much more spread among us in axis 2 as it applies to our society.
Philosophical points on republicanism vs federalism aside, economic understanding is an overlay of axis 2, which boils down to a Milton Friedman vs Keynes spectrum, or more broadly if a person believes that microeconomics principals apply at the macroeconomic level (and yes, I am showing some of my own bias there and doing great injustice to economists... which is exactly what reducing things to an axis does).
Yeah that is pretty much the rub ---- I couldn't give a rip about gays or abortions but at the same time believe in reducing government spending. Of course as one poster noted ---- the Republicans are all show and no go on this. They are freaking terrible at budgeting which might be expected from people who can't understand the simple numbers behind global climate change.
So yeah -- Many of us are stuck and have to pick the least of the crazies. Luckily in the Presidential Election there is always a Libertarian to chose from.
Correct with the bolded. The problem is, we as voters have had to chose between people who said they were in favor of cutting spending, and didn't cut it, and people who didn't say they were in favor of cutting spending, and didn't cut it. I'd rather vote for the guy who says he's going to do what I agree with even if he doesn't over voting for the guy who tells me he's going to do exactly what I don't want him to do. Voting for the latter rewards the behavior and virtually guarantees I'll never get the former.
-
Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.
Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government. Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.
That's true, but the national library system is also in the Constitution. I typically don't see many fiscal conservatives arguing in favor of the public library system on either a local or national level.
I wasn't aware they were pushing to disband or defund it to any substantial degree, either.
-
They are freaking terrible at budgeting which might be expected from people who can't understand the simple numbers behind global climate change.
I have reviewed those simple numbers, and they are far from simple. You are playing with a can of worms and a can opener here.
-
The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.
I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?
Largely irrelevant, IMO. If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not. This is a tragedy of the commons thing. If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.
Crap no! I live in a rural Republican area. Most of the welfare, social security, Medicare, Government employees, military, school teachers vote Republican.
then why did you contrast "Republican" and "welfare" in your post ...
oh never mind, I give up.
I'm not sure you know how this show works? It isn't about reality.
The Republicans are generally opposed to "welfare" which is a code word for inner city welfare queens. They are in favor of "gun owners" which is code word for poor rural folks who happen to live in their districts.
And more significantly Republicans are opposed to federal taxes of which their bible thumping southern supports generally pay net negative. That is why the Republicans never actually lower taxes because a majority of that tax money is routed to poor southern states either directly through welfare programs or indirectly through military bases/spending.
It is curious and ironic that the south, which is occupied by the Yankee army, is so pro military. It comes down to who butters their bread. And yes, all Republican politician know a large part of their base is low income, tax dependent.
It is the tragedy of the commons when it comes to taxes and welfare. i.e. The belief that we should cut taxes --- just don't mess with social security, Medicare or military spending. Which leaves very little left to cut. (I believe that food stamps are off the table now as well, since many a southern farmer, WalMart and a large constituency of the R party are now dependent on this ridiculous buy as many steaks and lobsters as you like program.)
What a Country!
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night. It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote --- it is a kinda stick it to the man, screw politicians, we're are sick of the way this country has been going and want a real man to run the show attitude. That and all agreed that Hillary can eat shit and die for all we care.
And these are Republican voters. I think the powers of the R party may have underestimated Trumps appeal to the right, middle and left. Name recognition means a lot in these matters (thus Bush and Clinton). My guess is that most voters have spent more time watching Trump in the last 4 years than they have Bush (what's his first name?) and Rodham Clinton (oh wait she dropped that first part didn't she?) I know if he came to our area there would be a huge turnout.
_____________
Think of how stupid the average person is. Now realize that half the people are even stupider than that. Now realize that those people are voting for President. In my field I work with people who generally have IQs lower than 80. Guess what? They are all registered voters.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night. It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote
May God forgive us.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night. It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote --- it is a kinda stick it to the man, screw politicians, we're are sick of the way this country has been going and want a real man to run the show attitude. That and all agreed that Hillary can eat shit and die for all we care.
And these are Republican voters. I think the powers of the R party may have underestimated Trumps appeal to the right, middle and left. Name recognition means a lot in these matters (thus Bush and Clinton). My guess is that most voters have spent more time watching Trump in the last 4 years than they have Bush (what's his first name?) and Rodham Clinton (oh wait she dropped that first part didn't she?) I know if he came to our area there would be a huge turnout.
_____________
Think of how stupid the average person is. Now realize that half the people are even stupider than that. Now realize that those people are voting for President. In my field I work with people who generally have IQs lower than 80. Guess what? They are all registered voters.
On the other side, I have plenty of leftists and statists in my facebook feed. They are all pounding the table for Sanders. The latest was some poll that has Col. Sanders drawing even to slightly ahead of Clinton II in New Hampshire.
So how about Sanders v. Trump?
I think I need to build an underground bunker in my backyard.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night. It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote --- it is a kinda stick it to the man, screw politicians, we're are sick of the way this country has been going and want a real man to run the show attitude. That and all agreed that Hillary can eat shit and die for all we care.
And these are Republican voters. I think the powers of the R party may have underestimated Trumps appeal to the right, middle and left. Name recognition means a lot in these matters (thus Bush and Clinton). My guess is that most voters have spent more time watching Trump in the last 4 years than they have Bush (what's his first name?) and Rodham Clinton (oh wait she dropped that first part didn't she?) I know if he came to our area there would be a huge turnout.
_____________
Think of how stupid the average person is. Now realize that half the people are even stupider than that. Now realize that those people are voting for President. In my field I work with people who generally have IQs lower than 80. Guess what? They are all registered voters.
On the other side, I have plenty of leftists and statists in my facebook feed. They are all pounding the table for Sanders. The latest was some poll that has Col. Sanders drawing even to slightly ahead of Clinton II in New Hampshire.
So how about Sanders v. Trump?
I think I need to build an underground bunker in my backyard.
Or even more interesting -- Bush, Clinton, Trump, Sanders!
-
So how about Sanders v. Trump?
I think I need to build an underground bunker in my backyard.
Well, I have to give Bernie his due. At least he is up front and honest about his ideology, even if it has been proven to fail numerous times over the past century. Trump isn't being honest about his intentions or beliefs. He is as much a politico as the rest of the field. He may say what the unwashed masses are thinking, but there will be no better connection between what he says now and what he would do in the office than what Obama said and actually did. I'm still waiting for one bankster prosecution under Obama's justice department.
-
Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.
No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen. As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state. You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation? That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.
I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either.
American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress. I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote. Ditto for the stupid electoral college. It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.
But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.
There is already a body that votes based on population; we don't need two.
What would be the point of the Senate being a smaller version of the House? You might as well get rid of it altogether then. But the fact remains that representatives vote based on the needs and desires of their constituents. Most federal bills affect states disproportionately for good or for bad. And Reps fight to bring home jobs to their States, but what happens if a bill comes to the floor that is favorable to large population states and not favorable to small population states? One would hope that Reps. would not harm small states out of compassion, but there wouldn't be anything to stop Large State Reps to push a bill through for their own good and the detriment of small states. Without the Senate, small States would have essentially no voice in what can happen in their own land by federal powers.
It is not antiquated. It is in fact, the only thing that keeps the small States sovereign from larger ones.
Most states have 2 legislative chambers that are based on proportional population representation. Those seem to work just fine. Large population states are made up of both high density areas and low density areas. The issues of Los Angeles County are very different from the issues of Yolo County. I would not be very worried about the prospects of small states if the Senate were more sensibly partitioned.
-
Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.
No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen. As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state. You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation? That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.
I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either.
American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress. I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote. Ditto for the stupid electoral college. It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.
But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.
There is already a body that votes based on population; we don't need two.
What would be the point of the Senate being a smaller version of the House? You might as well get rid of it altogether then. But the fact remains that representatives vote based on the needs and desires of their constituents. Most federal bills affect states disproportionately for good or for bad. And Reps fight to bring home jobs to their States, but what happens if a bill comes to the floor that is favorable to large population states and not favorable to small population states? One would hope that Reps. would not harm small states out of compassion, but there wouldn't be anything to stop Large State Reps to push a bill through for their own good and the detriment of small states. Without the Senate, small States would have essentially no voice in what can happen in their own land by federal powers.
It is not antiquated. It is in fact, the only thing that keeps the small States sovereign from larger ones.
Most states have 2 legislative chambers that are based on proportional population representation. Those seem to work just fine. Large population states are made up of both high density areas and low density areas. The issues of Los Angeles County are very different from the issues of Yolo County. I would not be very worried about the prospects of small states if the Senate were more sensibly partitioned.
Erm, isn't that why we have the House? Senate, every state gets an equal vote, House, population is reflected?
-
Erm, isn't that why we have the House? Senate, every state gets an equal vote, House, population is reflected?
Yes, it is. Originally, the Senate directly represented the state governments themselves; while the house represented the people. There have been several regretable amendments to screw that up already though. I'm not sure that a proportional senate would actually make that worse.
-
Bicameralism is only in existence due to legacy. It's only benefit is to protect a minority group's interests (in America's case it was small states, In Europe it was generally the wealthy aristocrats they were trying to protect), it really has no benefit or no place in today's world if you want everyone to have the same say in politics. It should go the way of the Dodo, but it won't because there isn't the political will to change it and also because there are quite a few more small states than large states and thus will strive to keep their undue power.
-
Just ran across this -- what if the Democratic primary was as nutty as the GOP one?
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/05/what_if_the_democratic_presidential_primary_were_as_bizarre_as_the_gop_one_currently_is/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
-
Or even more interesting -- Bush, Clinton, Trump, Sanders!
I love it.
I would love it more if our government was better structured to accommodate the kind of coalition building 3+ party systems require. It would be nice to see the small groups of purists on both sides that disproportionately impact the decisions of major parties have to actually coalition build, compromise and act like grown ups.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Do we really think Fox news will ask Trump these questions? Or will another contender venture into those shark infested waters themselves?
I think it is far more likely that he will just be given room to speak and allowed to hang himself by being himself.
-
It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Comparing Sarah Palin's executive experience to Donald Trump's is an insult to Palin's history. You may not like her history, and you may actually think she's dim, but she was an actual governor of an actual state. Trump does not have such experience, and being a real estate manager that succeeded in making his father's fortune larger doesn't qualify as executive experience.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
You've probably never watched a Republican primary debate. There's not a lot of substance there. Especially with 10 people on the stage. It's all rhetoric and soundbites. And you have the entire field raising their hands to questions like whether they believe the Earth is only 6000 years old and climate change doesn't exist, etc. These 10-candidate "debates" are just pumped full of people saying they are like Reagan and invoking Jesus and tossing in other red meat like Obamacare is terrible and keeping Iran from making a nuke is actually helping Iran make a nuke and Israel!!! and build a fence and cut taxes and eliminate XYZ parts of the government and jobs!!!, etc. I'm not saying the candidates don't have policy positions. You just won't hear them in this venue. There isn't enough time and they have to get a lot of pandering in.
What will kill Trump is that eventually a lot of the stuff in his past will keep trickling out and it's going to be too terrible to overcome. Stuff we don't even know about yet. He could also say something truly unforgivable (like Israel was wrong about something or agree with Obama on something). But he's a juggernaut. I don't think he'll win the nomination. But I don't think he's flaming out soon.
It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Comparing Sarah Palin's executive experience to Donald Trump's is an insult to Palin's history. You may not like her history, and you may actually think she's dim, but she was an actual governor of an actual state. Trump does not have such experience, and being a real estate manager that succeeded in making his father's fortune larger doesn't qualify as executive experience.
O_o ???
Being governor of AK is not that big a deal. There are 700k people in the state. And it's overflowing in oil tax money. And she couldn't even take it and quit after 2 years. Trump's experience isn't great either. But Palin was nothing special.
-
Do we really think Fox news will ask Trump these questions? Or will another contender venture into those shark infested waters themselves?
I think it is far more likely that he will just be given room to speak and allowed to hang himself by being himself.
It may not be this first debate that does it, but eventually he's going to have to answer real questions in front of a national audience, and that day is going to be lights out for his campaign.
How many women will vote for him after his treatment of women on the Miss USA pageant goes public? How many staunch evangelicals will vote for a man with so many divorces? How about all of those ethics probes into his business dealings? How many Hispanic votes can he possibly get after that whole "Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists" fiasco? How many fiscal conservatives will vote for a man who's fiscal bonafides include geting rich using extreme leverage and going bankrupt multiple times along the way? Like that's a good model for how to run a nation?
I hope he holds the spotlight for as long as possible, because he can only tarnish the republican brand. As a national candidate he's DOA and everyone knows it, so really it's just a matter of how much harm he can do to his party before he flames out ala Palin or Perry.
-
Post to follow.
Being a European living in the U.S. it's very interesting to hear your point of view.
I obviously cannot vote, but I guess around 90% of people form Europe would probably be much closer to the democrats side because of history and cultural reasons.
Just as an example, the fact that the most prominent, rich and advanced country in the world still has a large part of its population without access to basic healthcare sound obscene to a European ear.
The fact that some people are talking about killing a reform that is (many decades too late) starting to somehow reduce this percentage is outright science fiction.
The only valid argument would be "we want to kill the affordable care act because it's not enough; we want to join the rest of the civilized world and give free basic healthcare to all our citizens"
-
Post to follow.
Being a European living in the U.S. it's very interesting to hear your point of view.
I obviously cannot vote, but I guess around 90% of people form Europe would probably be much closer to the democrats side because of history and cultural reasons.
Just as an example, the fact that the most prominent, rich and advanced country in the world still has a large part of its population without access to basic healthcare sound obscene to a European ear.
The fact that some people are talking about killing a reform that is (many decades too late) starting to somehow reduce this percentage is outright science fiction.
The only valid argument would be "we want to kill the affordable care act because it's not enough; we want to join the rest of the civilized world and give free basic healthcare to all our citizens"
. I would probably agree with you if I was a foreigner from Europe. You guys make it look easy. The problem is that our sickness care industry isn't as close to free as yours and our medical industry is run by the corporations with their hand in our pockets. Ours cost 25% of our much more massive economy while it is my understanding that yours is closer to 10%. We could probably handle that. I'm pretty sure all the republicans will be agin it but it is now established and whoever is pres will have little chance of repealing it.
-
Just as an example, the fact that the most prominent, rich and advanced country in the world still has a large part of its population without access to basic healthcare sound obscene to a European ear.
This is a political myth that has never been true. Anyone has access to healthcare, including well beyond basic. And this has been true as a matter of law since the 1960's. Anyone can enter a hospital and expect to get care, the only question is who pays for it? Since medical bills are a debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy, and hospitals are prohibited by law from charging interest, low income families without health insurance have literally had life saving heart surgery on the taxpayer dime; because the hospitals can simply take such losses as a tax deduction. Well, at least since hospital deregulation; before that they were still considered 'public goods' that taxpayers supported directly. I have direct experience with this also, because my mother-in-law has never had a job; and received a heart bypass several years ago for exactly zero cost, and continues to receive ongoing heart care for exactly zero cost, and she does not have any insurance coverage whatsoever. Not even through Obamacare, which would likely cost her nothing anyway.
The whole Obamacare debate is about health insurance, not health care; as well as what can be considered a proper health insurance plan. It's nothing like a national health system of the European model, which likely wouldn't work here anyway.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican base in general cares whether he has policy experience or ideas that make any sense. The only thing I have heard from people who like him are that he "speaks his mind" and that he's "not afraid to stand up to people" and that he has "business experience." He is likely to continue what he is doing and those people will continue to believe that those three "qualities" are what distinguish him from the others.
-
It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Comparing Sarah Palin's executive experience to Donald Trump's is an insult to Palin's history. You may not like her history, and you may actually think she's dim, but she was an actual governor of an actual state. Trump does not have such experience, and being a real estate manager that succeeded in making his father's fortune larger doesn't qualify as executive experience.
Totally agree with you; however, Trump is a man, and he doesn't stammer and fall over himself when he has no fucking idea when he's talking about -- he just steamrolls right along in the exact same forceful, successful businessman tone. In other words, the base won't notice that he is even less qualified than Palin.
-
It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Comparing Sarah Palin's executive experience to Donald Trump's is an insult to Palin's history. You may not like her history, and you may actually think she's dim, but she was an actual governor of an actual state. Trump does not have such experience, and being a real estate manager that succeeded in making his father's fortune larger doesn't qualify as executive experience.
Totally agree with you; however, Trump is a man, and he doesn't stammer and fall over himself when he has no fucking idea when he's talking about -- he just steamrolls right along in the exact same forceful, successful businessman tone. In other words, the base won't notice that he is even less qualified than Palin.
Oh, I agree completely. I wasn't trying to argue that Palin would beat Trump if she were running, only that she is actually a better candidate for the job. There are at least a dozen better candidates that are actually running for the GOP nomination than Trump, but he will outlast at least half of them.
-
Post to follow.
Being a European living in the U.S. it's very interesting to hear your point of view.
I obviously cannot vote, but I guess around 90% of people form Europe would probably be much closer to the democrats side because of history and cultural reasons.
Just as an example, the fact that the most prominent, rich and advanced country in the world still has a large part of its population without access to basic healthcare sound obscene to a European ear.
The fact that some people are talking about killing a reform that is (many decades too late) starting to somehow reduce this percentage is outright science fiction.
The only valid argument would be "we want to kill the affordable care act because it's not enough; we want to join the rest of the civilized world and give free basic healthcare to all our citizens"
. I would probably agree with you if I was a foreigner from Europe. You guys make it look easy. The problem is that our sickness care industry isn't as close to free as yours and our medical industry is run by the corporations with their hand in our pockets. Ours cost 25% of our much more massive economy while it is my understanding that yours is closer to 10%. We could probably handle that. I'm pretty sure all the republicans will be agin it but it is now established and whoever is pres will have little chance of repealing it.
You are missing the point here. Our high costs are largely due to the idiotic bureaucracy of the health insurance industry. There are *so* many people whose job is only to obfuscate and complicate the process. Get them out of the way, and the costs go way down.
-
Just as an example, the fact that the most prominent, rich and advanced country in the world still has a large part of its population without access to basic healthcare sound obscene to a European ear.
This is a political myth that has never been true. Anyone has access to healthcare, including well beyond basic. And this has been true as a matter of law since the 1960's. Anyone can enter a hospital and expect to get care, the only question is who pays for it? Since medical bills are a debt that can be discharged in bankruptcy, and hospitals are prohibited by law from charging interest, low income families without health insurance have literally had life saving heart surgery on the taxpayer dime; because the hospitals can simply take such losses as a tax deduction. Well, at least since hospital deregulation; before that they were still considered 'public goods' that taxpayers supported directly. I have direct experience with this also, because my mother-in-law has never had a job; and received a heart bypass several years ago for exactly zero cost, and continues to receive ongoing heart care for exactly zero cost, and she does not have any insurance coverage whatsoever. Not even through Obamacare, which would likely cost her nothing anyway.
The whole Obamacare debate is about health insurance, not health care; as well as what can be considered a proper health insurance plan. It's nothing like a national health system of the European model, which likely wouldn't work here anyway.
This is only partially true. If you show up in the ER, hospitals are only required to stabilize you. This could involve putting your arm in a cast or emergency heart surgery. But they are not required to do ongoing treatments, give you chemo, give you a life supply of medications, etc. They could choose to do so, but they are not required to. The ER is not in any way a substitute for primary and non-acute specialist care. And when you get this care without insurance, hospitals can still come after you for non-payment. And the bill will be like 10 times what it would be if you did have insurance. And they will send it to collections and ruin your credit. Etc. So it's not a free lunch.
-
Post to follow.
Being a European living in the U.S. it's very interesting to hear your point of view.
I obviously cannot vote, but I guess around 90% of people form Europe would probably be much closer to the democrats side because of history and cultural reasons.
Just as an example, the fact that the most prominent, rich and advanced country in the world still has a large part of its population without access to basic healthcare sound obscene to a European ear.
The fact that some people are talking about killing a reform that is (many decades too late) starting to somehow reduce this percentage is outright science fiction.
The only valid argument would be "we want to kill the affordable care act because it's not enough; we want to join the rest of the civilized world and give free basic healthcare to all our citizens"
. I would probably agree with you if I was a foreigner from Europe. You guys make it look easy. The problem is that our sickness care industry isn't as close to free as yours and our medical industry is run by the corporations with their hand in our pockets. Ours cost 25% of our much more massive economy while it is my understanding that yours is closer to 10%. We could probably handle that. I'm pretty sure all the republicans will be agin it but it is now established and whoever is pres will have little chance of repealing it.
You are missing the point here. Our high costs are largely due to the idiotic bureaucracy of the health insurance industry. There are *so* many people whose job is only to obfuscate and complicate the process. Get them out of the way, and the costs go way down.
Unfortunately, they are the ones running the tax scam. It is great for them! For the citizens not so much. We are forced to pay the health tax no matter what the cost or efficacy.
-
And the bill will be like 10 times what it would be if you did have insurance. And they will send it to collections and ruin your credit. Etc. So it's not a free lunch.
But that is not relevant to a person who can't afford insurance anyway. Their credit is already screwed.
-
But that is not relevant to a person who can't afford insurance anyway. Their credit is already screwed.
How do you figure? I had excellent credit when I was dirt poor.
-
But that is not relevant to a person who can't afford insurance anyway. Their credit is already screwed.
How do you figure? I had excellent credit when I was dirt poor.
If you had excellent credit, you were not dirt poor.
-
But that is not relevant to a person who can't afford insurance anyway. Their credit is already screwed.
How do you figure? I had excellent credit when I was dirt poor.
If you had excellent credit, you were not dirt poor.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that all poor people acquire and then default on debt? You don't think it's possible to be poor and still build good credit?
I did it, on less than $10k/year for most of my 20s, when I could not afford health insurance. I'm sure others here did to.
-
But that is not relevant to a person who can't afford insurance anyway. Their credit is already screwed.
How do you figure? I had excellent credit when I was dirt poor.
If you had excellent credit, you were not dirt poor.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that all poor people acquire and then default on debt? You don't think it's possible to be poor and still build good credit?
I did it, on less than $10k/year for most of my 20s, when I could not afford health insurance. I'm sure others here did to.
You were low income. You do not know what dirt poor means. You were about 10 times the income of dirt poor, if not more. Do you think you could have done it on $3 per day?
-
You were low income.
Sure, I used "dirt poor" as an exaggeration to make a point, as I am wont to do. Do you think someone who makes $10k/year can afford private health insurance, but can't have good credit? Because that's the argument you were making, that people who can't afford insurance already have ruined credit and therefore get effectively free medical care.
You do not know what dirt poor means.
I'm not even sure what relevance my understanding of poverty has to do with your suggestion that all people without health insurance have ruined credit, but for the record I have seen poverty on six continents. If you really want to make this a contest about who has spent more time in the gutter, you're in for a treat. You can even go first.
-
You were low income.
Sure, I used "dirt poor" as an exaggeration to make a point, as I am wont to do. Do you think someone who makes $10k/year can afford private health insurance, but can't have good credit? Because that's the argument you were making, that people who can't afford insurance already have ruined credit and therefore get effectively free medical care.
Sure, if you make $10K consitantly for several years, your credit score could be awesome. I had a 740 score making $13K a year. But credit was still denied me, because it was never just a function of my credit worthiness. My actual ability to pay the bill was always a factor. Did you manage to actually get credit at $10K per year?
You do not know what dirt poor means.
I'm not even sure what relevance my understanding of poverty has to do with your suggestion that all people without health insurance have ruined credit, but for the record I have seen poverty on six continents. If you really want to make this a contest about who has spent more time in the gutter, you're in for a treat. You can even go first.
I think I'll pass.
-
But that is not relevant to a person who can't afford insurance anyway. Their credit is already screwed.
How do you figure? I had excellent credit when I was dirt poor.
If you had excellent credit, you were not dirt poor.
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that all poor people acquire and then default on debt? You don't think it's possible to be poor and still build good credit?
I did it, on less than $10k/year for most of my 20s, when I could not afford health insurance. I'm sure others here did to.
You were low income. You do not know what dirt poor means. You were about 10 times the income of dirt poor, if not more. Do you think you could have done it on $3 per day?
Wait, dirt poor has a specific definition? What percentage of Americans do you think actually live on $1000/year? And for the record, I also had excellent credit when I was living on $14,000/year as graduate student on assistantship. I won't claim to have been dirt poor, however, because the one thing that my parents did pay for at that time was my health insurance. Fortunately, I've never known what it was like to go with it.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican base in general cares whether he has policy experience or ideas that make any sense. The only thing I have heard from people who like him are that he "speaks his mind" and that he's "not afraid to stand up to people" and that he has "business experience." He is likely to continue what he is doing and those people will continue to believe that those three "qualities" are what distinguish him from the others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/in-drama-of-first-gop-debate-donald-trump-is-without-a-script.html
Donald Trump and the G.O.P. Debate: Policy Is Not His Point
Donald J. Trump, who will be at the center of the first Republican presidential debate Thursday night, may prove as elusive a target to his rivals as a puff of smoke.
That is because Mr. Trump’s popularity — his support in some polls is double that of his closest competitors — is built on his unfettered style, rather than on his positions, which have proved highly fungible.
He may be the first post-policy candidate.
Mr. Trump’s website, unlike those of nearly every other candidate, has no issues page. He has given no policy addresses. He has boasted that he is not spending time plowing through briefing books or practicing answers to imagined questions, the customary ways to prepare for a debate.
...
Rather, it is built on boiling grass-roots anger over the ineffectiveness and scripted talking points of conventional politicians on matters like illegal immigration and America’s global power.
“Everybody in the establishment misunderstands the game he’s playing,” said Newt Gingrich.
...
When another presidential contender, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, called him “a cancer on conservatism” last month, pointing out Mr. Trump’s previous advocacy for single-payer health care and his support of Hillary Rodham Clinton, it was Mr. Perry, castigated on social media, who paid a price.
-
Wow 10 hours long! Now that is impressive. The other candidates will have a hard time competing with that!
-
The times article (watch for copyright violations, BTW) does put its finger on one thing I have been expecting: backlash against the leftist statist trend of the last several years. I have been expecting this for some time and it seems to me that it is a natural move as the US economy is no longer on gubmint life support and an increasingly large number of people are getting tired of heavy handed regulation (and everything else).
I just never dreamed it would be spearheaded by Trump...
-
The times article (watch for copyright violations, BTW)
I think selective quotation for non-commercial criticism, comment, parody, and news reporting intended to benefit the public are all fair use.
-
Sure, if you make $10K consitantly for several years, your credit score could be awesome. I had a 740 score making $13K a year. But credit was still denied me, because it was never just a function of my credit worthiness. My actual ability to pay the bill was always a factor. Did you manage to actually get credit at $10K per year?
Wow, those goal posts keep dancing all over the field, but now that you have at least conceded the fact that a person who cannot afford insurance can still have good credit, consider this: even if we assume that such a person can never actually obtain credit for so long as he or she cannot afford insurance (which is not true), having good credit is still relevant for a host of other reasons (it helps, for example, when seeking employment or a place to live). I'd venture to say that the ruining of good credit is arguably even more relevant to a person who can't afford insurance than to a person who can. If my credit were ruined today, it would mean I'd have to spend some time repairing it before I could add another credit card to my vast collection or opt to take out a second mortgage on my fancy townhouse. If a poor person's good credit is ruined, it could have comparatively ruinous effects on his or her life.
I think I'll pass.
That's too bad. When sol offers to tell a story, it usually pays to take him up on it. I would have liked to have heard some tales of sol's experiences with global poverty.
-
Bad credit is one of the big reasons why people get stuck in poverty. They run into situations where they need money on the short term (for any number of unexpected expenses) and they end up paying usurious rates (like 400%) to a payday lender to borrow $390 and can never get out of debt--even after paying many thousands of dollars over several years. Whereas if they had an 800 score they could put the $390 on their credit card @ 20% or get a personal loan at 10% and then pay it off eventually over time.
That's too bad. When sol offers to tell a story, it usually pays to take him up on it. I would have liked to have heard some tales of sol's experiences with global poverty.
I'd like to hear some Sol stories.
-
I'd also like to hear one of Sol's stories.
-
It looks like we have achieved agreement in one area...
Sol, tell us a story
pretty please
-
The times article (watch for copyright violations, BTW)
I think selective quotation for non-commercial criticism, comment, parody, and news reporting intended to benefit the public are all fair use.
Agreed. I just get nervous when I see stuff that is over 400 words of quotation. Not sure if you got to that level, but it was starting to look like it.
-
It looks like we have achieved agreement in one area...
Sol, tell us a story
pretty please
Perhaps in a separate thread.
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican base in general cares whether he has policy experience or ideas that make any sense. The only thing I have heard from people who like him are that he "speaks his mind" and that he's "not afraid to stand up to people" and that he has "business experience." He is likely to continue what he is doing and those people will continue to believe that those three "qualities" are what distinguish him from the others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/in-drama-of-first-gop-debate-donald-trump-is-without-a-script.html
Donald Trump and the G.O.P. Debate: Policy Is Not His Point
Donald J. Trump, who will be at the center of the first Republican presidential debate Thursday night, may prove as elusive a target to his rivals as a puff of smoke.
That is because Mr. Trump’s popularity — his support in some polls is double that of his closest competitors — is built on his unfettered style, rather than on his positions, which have proved highly fungible.
He may be the first post-policy candidate.
Mr. Trump’s website, unlike those of nearly every other candidate, has no issues page. He has given no policy addresses. He has boasted that he is not spending time plowing through briefing books or practicing answers to imagined questions, the customary ways to prepare for a debate.
...
Rather, it is built on boiling grass-roots anger over the ineffectiveness and scripted talking points of conventional politicians on matters like illegal immigration and America’s global power.
“Everybody in the establishment misunderstands the game he’s playing,” said Newt Gingrich.
...
When another presidential contender, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, called him “a cancer on conservatism” last month, pointing out Mr. Trump’s previous advocacy for single-payer health care and his support of Hillary Rodham Clinton, it was Mr. Perry, castigated on social media, who paid a price.
"The first post-policy candidate." Nice phrase.
Glad to know the NYT agrees with me (though I'm not thrilled to be in agreement with Newt).
-
This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.
I predict that the debates will be what finally sinks the Trump candidacy. He doesn't have any policy experience or voting record, and the debates will be the first opportunity for someone to challenge his asinine sound bites.
Like how is he going to respond to accusations that deporting every illegal immigrant would decimate the businesses that traditionally support the GOP? Or how to handle Iran's return to international status in the wake of recent Israel/Palestine relations? How does he feel about tax reform, or what's his stance on the Keystone pipeline or Yucca mountain or net neutrality or modernizing/downsizing our nuclear arsenal? Is he still against gay marriage even after reading the supreme court ruling that so explicitly justifies it in a constitutional context?
On these and a thousand other issues, he's basically a blank canvas. His popularity is entirely based in not having any opinions that people can disagree with. I think the debates will reveal just how shallow his qualifications really are. It'll be Sarah Palin all over again.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Republican base in general cares whether he has policy experience or ideas that make any sense. The only thing I have heard from people who like him are that he "speaks his mind" and that he's "not afraid to stand up to people" and that he has "business experience." He is likely to continue what he is doing and those people will continue to believe that those three "qualities" are what distinguish him from the others.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/us/politics/in-drama-of-first-gop-debate-donald-trump-is-without-a-script.html
Donald Trump and the G.O.P. Debate: Policy Is Not His Point
Donald J. Trump, who will be at the center of the first Republican presidential debate Thursday night, may prove as elusive a target to his rivals as a puff of smoke.
That is because Mr. Trump’s popularity — his support in some polls is double that of his closest competitors — is built on his unfettered style, rather than on his positions, which have proved highly fungible.
He may be the first post-policy candidate.
Mr. Trump’s website, unlike those of nearly every other candidate, has no issues page. He has given no policy addresses. He has boasted that he is not spending time plowing through briefing books or practicing answers to imagined questions, the customary ways to prepare for a debate.
...
Rather, it is built on boiling grass-roots anger over the ineffectiveness and scripted talking points of conventional politicians on matters like illegal immigration and America’s global power.
“Everybody in the establishment misunderstands the game he’s playing,” said Newt Gingrich.
...
When another presidential contender, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, called him “a cancer on conservatism” last month, pointing out Mr. Trump’s previous advocacy for single-payer health care and his support of Hillary Rodham Clinton, it was Mr. Perry, castigated on social media, who paid a price.
"The first post-policy candidate." Nice phrase.
Glad to know the NYT agrees with me (though I'm not thrilled to be in agreement with Newt).
NYT is basically saying that this charade has boiled down to little more than a popularity contest. At least, that's how I interpret "post-policy candidate".
As an aside, I'm also assuming "Newt" (Gingrich) is short for "Newton", or something similar? I don't think I ever caught his full name last time around, but I did enjoy all of the "Grinch" puns.
-
Sure, if you make $10K consitantly for several years, your credit score could be awesome. I had a 740 score making $13K a year. But credit was still denied me, because it was never just a function of my credit worthiness. My actual ability to pay the bill was always a factor. Did you manage to actually get credit at $10K per year?
Wow, those goal posts keep dancing all over the field, but now that you have at least conceded the fact that a person who cannot afford insurance can still have good credit, consider this: even if we assume that such a person can never actually obtain credit for so long as he or she cannot afford insurance (which is not true), having good credit is still relevant for a host of other reasons (it helps, for example, when seeking employment or a place to live). I'd venture to say that the ruining of good credit is arguably even more relevant to a person who can't afford insurance than to a person who can. If my credit were ruined today, it would mean I'd have to spend some time repairing it before I could add another credit card to my vast collection or opt to take out a second mortgage on my fancy townhouse. If a poor person's good credit is ruined, it could have comparatively ruinous effects on his or her life.
The first credit card I ever got was when I had $600/month of income working part-time as an undergrad. I got an $800 credit line at sub-20% rates. By the time I was in grad school, I had two credit cards with a $3,000 credit line, and a history of perfect payment. When I got a $13,000 loan for a truck (in grad school, annual income:$14,000), my credit score was 780, and they approved my loan on the basis of credit score alone. Never even asked for proof of income. However, I had the immeasurable benefit of parents and siblings who knew how to navigate the financial system. I don't presume that it would be half as easy for someone without financially-savvy family members.
-
Glad to know the NYT agrees with me (though I'm not thrilled to be in agreement with Newt).
Don't stress about it. Newt isn't a conservative either.
-
Sure, if you make $10K consitantly for several years, your credit score could be awesome. I had a 740 score making $13K a year. But credit was still denied me, because it was never just a function of my credit worthiness. My actual ability to pay the bill was always a factor. Did you manage to actually get credit at $10K per year?
Wow, those goal posts keep dancing all over the field, but now that you have at least conceded the fact that a person who cannot afford insurance can still have good credit, consider this: even if we assume that such a person can never actually obtain credit for so long as he or she cannot afford insurance (which is not true), having good credit is still relevant for a host of other reasons (it helps, for example, when seeking employment or a place to live). I'd venture to say that the ruining of good credit is arguably even more relevant to a person who can't afford insurance than to a person who can. If my credit were ruined today, it would mean I'd have to spend some time repairing it before I could add another credit card to my vast collection or opt to take out a second mortgage on my fancy townhouse. If a poor person's good credit is ruined, it could have comparatively ruinous effects on his or her life.
The first credit card I ever got was when I had $600/month of income working part-time as an undergrad. I got an $800 credit line at sub-20% rates. By the time I was in grad school, I had two credit cards with a $3,000 credit line, and a history of perfect payment. When I got a $13,000 loan for a truck (in grad school, annual income:$14,000), my credit score was 780, and they approved my loan on the basis of credit score alone. Never even asked for proof of income. However, I had the immeasurable benefit of parents and siblings who knew how to navigate the financial system. I don't presume that it would be half as easy for someone without financially-savvy family members.
Well, I'm not going to continue to argue. It looks like I've already lost this point. But before I tuck my tail up and limp off, I must say that I've never met anyone with such a story, Mississippi. I know that I have never gotten any kind of loan without them either asking my income, or simply checking for it on my credit report. And 780 is an impressive score.
-
Well, I'm not going to continue to argue. It looks like I've already lost this point. But before I tuck my tail up and limp off, I must say that I've never met anyone with such a story, Mississippi. I know that I have never gotten any kind of loan without them either asking my income, or simply checking for it on my credit report. And 780 is an impressive score.
no need to tuck your tail up... part of discussion is just learning and challenging our notions. I'll agree that the credit industry is completely bonkers. Similar story to some of the others - I got my first card in college to "build my credit" and used it responsibly. They kept bumping up my limit even though my annual (mostly summer) income was <$10k. Then I got a second card so that I could earn some airline miles. When I got my first "job" as a technician (earning a lowly $24k) I got a third card because I was making a lot of purchases for work and getting reimbursed. At one point I looked at my total credit and thought "what the hell - I take home $1,700/month but my credit limit is over $30k!
Then I applied for a mortgage. I put 20% down and showed I had still had some savings. I got the lowest posted rate and a $168k mortgage. My available credit is almost 10x my salary. WTF?!
I've used all this credit responsibly, never carrying a balance and never missing a payment. But it still amazes me that it was all so easy... and how that can be so dangerous to someone who isn't credit-savvy,
-
Well, I'm not going to continue to argue. It looks like I've already lost this point. But before I tuck my tail up and limp off, I must say that I've never met anyone with such a story, Mississippi. I know that I have never gotten any kind of loan without them either asking my income, or simply checking for it on my credit report. And 780 is an impressive score.
no need to tuck your tail up... part of discussion is just learning and challenging our notions. I'll agree that the credit industry is completely bonkers. Similar story to some of the others - I got my first card in college to "build my credit" and used it responsibly. They kept bumping up my limit even though my annual (mostly summer) income was <$10k. Then I got a second card so that I could earn some airline miles. When I got my first "job" as a technician (earning a lowly $24k) I got a third card because I was making a lot of purchases for work and getting reimbursed. At one point I looked at my total credit and thought "what the hell - I take home $1,700/month but my credit limit is over $30k!
Then I applied for a mortgage. I put 20% down and showed I had still had some savings. I got the lowest posted rate and a $168k mortgage. My available credit is almost 10x my salary. WTF?!
I've used all this credit responsibly, never carrying a balance and never missing a payment. But it still amazes me that it was all so easy... and how that can be so dangerous to someone who isn't credit-savvy,
At first I couldn't get credit due to not having a credit history. Then I opened a secured card. And then a few months later I could get unsecured cards. I also had my limit just keep going up to most of my annual salary. It is very easy to screw up if you're the average impulsive person.
-
Bringing the topic back around, I just finished listening to the Republican debate. My first impression, of note here, is that is sounds very much like tax reforms might be a big issue. And none of the general plans sound particularly favorable to early retirement types, because it seems like the tax deductions and benefits that exclude qualified dividends and non-wage income from full tax exposure are in their crosshairs. Also, a means test and an additional 2 years to full-retirement age for social security was mentioned.
-
I liked john k. Trump underwhelming.
-
Bringing the topic back around, I just finished listening to the Republican debate. My first impression, of note here, is that is sounds very much like tax reforms might be a big issue. And none of the general plans sound particularly favorable to early retirement types, because it seems like the tax deductions and benefits that exclude qualified dividends and non-wage income from full tax exposure are in their crosshairs. Also, a means test and an additional 2 years to full-retirement age for social security was mentioned.
The social security reform was christy. If he's the nominee, I'll be shocked.
-
I liked john k. Trump underwhelming.
Trump was pretty much what I expected... and he's done nothing to gain my support.
Jeb seemed like the front-runner that he is, everything he said seemed polished and reversed and thought out.
Huckabee and Cruz's tirades scare me a bit, and seem to be pandering to the angry, our-country-is-ruined subset of Americans. I don't like that.
Rand Paul looked uncertain of himself the whole night. He looked like a man who knew his campaign was dissolving.
Ben Carson often seemed like one of the few adults in the room.
Christie was his bombastic self. I think that jab about his weight was a low blow... he's fat, what difference does that make?
Marco Rubio was the one that surprised me... in a good way.
just my impressions...
-
The scariest part for me was all the praise the lord crap. I didn't see everything. Did Trump praise Jesus?
-
The scariest part for me was all the praise the lord crap. I didn't see everything. Did Trump praise Jesus?
can't recall Trump praising Jesus, but at least half the field seemed to. As soon as a politician starts talking about the lord and jesus i tend to tune out. If I want spiritual guidance i go to church. I'm not comfortable with politics being dictated by faith (especially foreign policy) any more than I"m comfortable with my faith being dictated by current politics.
-
I am pissed that I wasn't able to watch the debate. No cable, no high-speed internet. Fox didn't broadcast over their regular open channels, which I am now considering to boycott.
-
Kasich came across as the most reasonable.
Bush was mostly forgettable - is he supposed to be a front runner? He comes across so mild, that I wonder how much he even wants the job.
Carson seemed out of his league - hesitant - I get the impression that he's just used to delivering a single stump speech.
Rubio quipped that he lived paycheck to paycheck a few years ago - isn't he still living paycheck to paycheck?
I liked Christie's position regarding SSN and would be willing to accept moving the age back 2 years and some means testing. But what about raising the withholding income limits?
Enjoyed the exchange between Christie and Paul on privacy rights, which are important to me.
Paul also had the most reasonable position regarding Iran. I just think Rand comes across as unlikable.
Walker was mostly forgettable (except for his comment about wife, 2 daughters and a motorcycle). Still Walker gets credit in that only he was willing to give specific answers regarding how he might handle a future foreign policy challenge differently than Obama. Everyone else just offered meaningless platitudes - show leadership, show steel, be tougher, blah, blah, blah.
Cruz and Huckabee seem to fade into the background now that Trump is out-crazying them, sucking most of the air from the room.
And Trump was Trump. He made the night entertaining in all his no-apology outrageousness. I'd never want the guy as President, but to be honest, I probably wouldn't have made an appointment to watch the debate if he had not been up there on stage.
-
All good points. For me it was a reminder that Kasich is really, really experienced.
-
Kasich came across as the most reasonable.
That's because he is. He actually has admitted that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed, he expanded Medicaid in Ohio after the passage of ACA, and he has said that repeal of the ACA was "not gonna happen" and stated that "The opposition to it was really either political or ideological." Unfortunately he's been backpedaling on some of his progressive stances to try and align himself with the Republican base, announcing that he's "not sure" what's causing climate change (really??) and stating that his comments in support of ACA only referred to the Medicaid expansion, not the law itself. Oh well, that just makes my vote that much easier to cast for the Democratic nominee.
-
...he's "not sure" what's causing climate change (really??)
Seems an eminently sensible position. Before this thread gets derailed, see http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/are-climate-skeptics-always-anti-science/ for various well reasoned perspectives on this issue. Unfortunately some perspectives were more ad hominem than well reasoned so the thread was locked.
-
...he's "not sure" what's causing climate change (really??)
Seems an eminently sensible position. Before this thread gets derailed, see http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/are-climate-skeptics-always-anti-science/ for various well reasoned perspectives on this issue. Unfortunately some perspectives were more ad hominem than well reasoned so the thread was locked.
I don't believe for a moment that he isn't sure. I do believe that he's shelving his personal beliefs for political gain. I used to be a climate change denier myself, not so very long ago, so I'm quite familiar with every argument against human causes. And it seemed that most of the discussion in the thread that you referenced implicitly admitted that human-caused CO2 emissions were driving climate change - the only rational argument at this point seems to be about the severity of the predicted changes (and I do agree that this is far from certain, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't be doing anything about it).
-
...he's "not sure" what's causing climate change (really??)
Seems an eminently sensible position. Before this thread gets derailed, see http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/are-climate-skeptics-always-anti-science/ for various well reasoned perspectives on this issue. Unfortunately some perspectives were more ad hominem than well reasoned so the thread was locked.
I don't believe for a moment that he isn't sure. I do believe that he's shelving his personal beliefs for political gain. I used to be a climate change denier myself, not so very long ago, so I'm quite familiar with every argument against human causes. And it seemed that most of the discussion in the thread that you referenced implicitly admitted that human-caused CO2 emissions were driving climate change - the only rational argument at this point seems to be about the severity of the predicted changes (and I do agree that this is far from certain, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't be doing anything about it).
Glad you converted! To me it is appalling that the Republican, Energy Party keeps up the climate change is not caused by fossil fuels rhetoric. How embarrassed most these highly educated men be towing that line of shit? They'll all have to roll over on it eventually. Why not this year?
-
That's because he is. He actually has admitted that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed, he expanded Medicaid in Ohio after the passage of ACA, and he has said that repeal of the ACA was "not gonna happen"
Whew, good thing he can't possibly win the primary, then. The only possible threat to a centrist Hillary presidency is a non-loony republican candidate. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure only loons will survive their primary.
the only rational argument at this point seems to be about the severity of the predicted changes (and I do agree that this is far from certain, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't be doing anything about it).
Keep in mind that the remaining uncertainty about the severity of climate response to greenhouse gas inputs is entirely a question of timing. All of the worst case impacts still arrive eventually, it's just a matter of how long before they happen.
Some folks like to argue that the low-sensitivity climate possibility makes things almost tolerably disastrous by the end of the century, instead of truly catastrophic, without recognizing that this scenario just delays that catastrophy, not avoids it.
Eventually, all of earth's glaciers below 10k feet will melt. The ocean will warm, the ice sheets will collapse, island nations will disappear, most of Bangladesh will cease to exist, the permafrost will mostly melt, hundreds of species will cease to exist outside of zoos and thousands more will just be gone. Ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns will shift, severely alerting local climate by swapping historical weather patterns with other places. Most coral reefs will drown, agriculture and forestry will undergo dramatic long term restructuring, and humanity will spend billions on adaptive infrastructure to deal with it all.
The only unknown question is whether this is a 50 year timeline or a 500 year timeline. In the context of earth history, those are both essentially instantaneous changes.
-
The times article (watch for copyright violations, BTW) does put its finger on one thing I have been expecting: backlash against the leftist statist trend of the last several years...
So I see lots of backlash against "leftists"*, but where's the backlash against statists? All I see leading the GOP field are a bunch of totalitarian corpro-fascist dominionists (give or take the slightly-less despotic Paul Ryan) The few reasonable Republicans have no chance according to Fox News, and were shunned accordingly.
(* Well, not really -- I see a lot of extreme rightists claiming there to be a backlash against policies that are actually moderate.)
That's because he is. He actually has admitted that climate change is a problem that needs to be addressed, he expanded Medicaid in Ohio after the passage of ACA, and he has said that repeal of the ACA was "not gonna happen"
Whew, good thing he can't possibly win the primary, then. The only possible threat to a centrist Hillary presidency is a non-loony republican candidate. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure only loons will survive their primary.
What's "fortunate" about that? Hillary may be preferable to the totalitarian corpro-fascist dominionists, but that only means she'd be a disaster of slightly lesser magnitude.
-
...he's "not sure" what's causing climate change (really??)
Seems an eminently sensible position. Before this thread gets derailed, see http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/are-climate-skeptics-always-anti-science/ for various well reasoned perspectives on this issue. Unfortunately some perspectives were more ad hominem than well reasoned so the thread was locked.
I don't believe for a moment that he isn't sure. I do believe that he's shelving his personal beliefs for political gain. I used to be a climate change denier myself, not so very long ago, so I'm quite familiar with every argument against human causes
Well, I used to be a Green in my young adult years. Then I studied the science for myself, and realized that it's all too complex for such simple predictions; and no one really knows what the long term effects of a doubling of carbon in the atmosphere would do. The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
-
the only rational argument at this point seems to be about the severity of the predicted changes (and I do agree that this is far from certain, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't be doing anything about it).
Keep in mind that the remaining uncertainty about the severity of climate response to greenhouse gas inputs is entirely a question of timing. All of the worst case impacts still arrive eventually, it's just a matter of how long before they happen.
Some folks like to argue that the low-sensitivity climate possibility makes things almost tolerably disastrous by the end of the century, instead of truly catastrophic, without recognizing that this scenario just delays that catastrophy, not avoids it.
Eventually, all of earth's glaciers below 10k feet will melt. The ocean will warm, the ice sheets will collapse, island nations will disappear, most of Bangladesh will cease to exist, the permafrost will mostly melt, hundreds of species will cease to exist outside of zoos and thousands more will just be gone. Ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns will shift, severely alerting local climate by swapping historical weather patterns with other places. Most coral reefs will drown, agriculture and forestry will undergo dramatic long term restructuring, and humanity will spend billions on adaptive infrastructure to deal with it all.
The only unknown question is whether this is a 50 year timeline or a 500 year timeline. In the context of earth history, those are both essentially instantaneous changes.
I don't think people understand how expensive it could be to deal with the consequences. When rain stops falling in one place and starts falling in another, we could build a bunch of infrastructure to reroute the water to where we want it to be. But that will be really expensive and require a lot of energy to pump all that water in perpetuity (water is expensive to pump uphill). But what about loss of fisheries due to the ocean becoming too acidic? That's hard to even compensate for. And losing huge amounts of coastline (where the expensive real estate is). Manhattan is basically at sea level, as is much of Florida. Losing all that real estate and then moving all those people somewhere else will be expensive. And then all the unrest and refugees from nations that are going underwater. There could be a lot of global conflict. And wars are expensive too.
On the other side, the cost of going carbon free isn't that high. Solar power has plummeted in price. It's now beating out coal and nuclear in certain places based on price. With the costs continuing to fall as the scale rises, it's probably going to be taking over the grid in the nearish future. The engineering issues will be in enabling sufficient grid storage to meet nighttime demand, but those are solvable if we try, especially by integrating electric vehicles into the grid. And electric vehicles are already cheaper from a TCO standpoint. As people become more familiar with them and the batteries continue to get better, they are going to take over new car sales as well.
If we wait for markets to figure things out with the current incentive system (where carbon and other pollutants are not priced), it will take a lot longer for the transition to occur. During which time we put another 100PPM CO2 or so up there. If we just priced in the externalities through a carbon tax (and sent a check to each person for the per capita amount of the total revenue received so the tax would be revenue neutral and sunset itself over time) it would accelerate that transition in an efficient and market based manner.
-
The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
The thing that pisses me off is that it's only infeasible politically. There's no reason we shouldn't be transitioning to a solar-based energy system on a massive scale right now.
-
The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
The thing that pisses me off is that it's only infeasible politically. There's no reason we shouldn't be transitioning to a solar-based energy system on a massive scale right now.
I think MoonShadow was talking about nuclear. But, I would argue we are transitioning to a solar (and wind)-based energy system on a massive scale right now. In the US more than half of new power generation brought online in 2014 was either solar or wind: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/03/solar-wind-53-new-us-electricity-capacity-2014/
-
The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
The thing that pisses me off is that it's only infeasible politically. There's no reason we shouldn't be transitioning to a solar-based energy system on a massive scale right now.
I think MoonShadow was talking about nuclear.
Yes, I was. Solar will have it's place, but it doesn't scale well enough to ever be a base power generation source, regardless of how much sun there is.
-
The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
The thing that pisses me off is that it's only infeasible politically. There's no reason we shouldn't be transitioning to a solar-based energy system on a massive scale right now.
I think MoonShadow was talking about nuclear.
Yes, I was. Solar will have it's place, but it doesn't scale well enough to ever be a base power generation source, regardless of how much sun there is.
Okay, well, I think you're wrong on that count. But I'm very much in favor of expanding nuclear power as well, to establish a steady source of power to act as a baseline for the electrical grid, along with hydro. And to beltim I would argue that we are only adding additional capacity in the form of solar and wind, when we need to be replacing fossil fuel with renewables.
-
We just need better batteries and solar will scale nicely. Nuclear is great . . . but is a pretty short term solution. At current consumption rates, there's only enough Uranium to last about 80 years. Build more plants and you're just reducing the amount of time it's a viable option.
-
The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
The thing that pisses me off is that it's only infeasible politically. There's no reason we shouldn't be transitioning to a solar-based energy system on a massive scale right now.
I think MoonShadow was talking about nuclear.
Yes, I was. Solar will have it's place, but it doesn't scale well enough to ever be a base power generation source, regardless of how much sun there is.
Okay, well, I think you're wrong on that count. But I'm very much in favor of expanding nuclear power as well, to establish a steady source of power to act as a baseline for the electrical grid, along with hydro. And to beltim I would argue that we are only adding additional capacity in the form of solar and wind, when we need to be replacing fossil fuel with renewables.
Okay. This year about 13 MW of coal is scheduled to be taken offline, which will be more than replaced by wind and solar: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20292
Solar has really only been economically competitive with carbon-intensive power sources in the past few years, so it's not really a surprise that it's ramping up very quickly now, or that it's taken until the past few years to ramp up so much.
-
We just need better batteries and solar will scale nicely. Nuclear is great . . . but is a pretty short term solution. At current consumption rates, there's only enough Uranium to last about 80 years. Build more plants and you're just reducing the amount of time it's a viable option.
What about the negative environmental impact of the batteries? Is that an issue?
Also, nuclear has some serious downsides that need to be considered. Seems like it could be worse than using fossil fuels.
-
The irony is that there is only one scalable method of carbon zero energy that is presently available to us, and that method isn't politically possible either.
The thing that pisses me off is that it's only infeasible politically. There's no reason we shouldn't be transitioning to a solar-based energy system on a massive scale right now.
I think MoonShadow was talking about nuclear.
Yes, I was. Solar will have it's place, but it doesn't scale well enough to ever be a base power generation source, regardless of how much sun there is.
Okay, well, I think you're wrong on that count. But I'm very much in favor of expanding nuclear power as well, to establish a steady source of power to act as a baseline for the electrical grid, along with hydro. And to beltim I would argue that we are only adding additional capacity in the form of solar and wind, when we need to be replacing fossil fuel with renewables.
Actually, what's been happening is that solar, wind, and gas have been replacing coal. Electricity consumption has been relatively constant (increased efficiency offset by increased population).
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/
The baseload nighttime power demands are not as high as you'd think. They can be pretty well handled in many locations with current and new wind (with some storage), current hydro, current nuclear, and current geothermal. Gas (including landfill gas) or additional nuclear could be used to make up shortfalls. But solar thermal or solar plus storage are also possibilities. Solar thermal plants can operate around 20 hours per day by storing the heat in molten salts.
-
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/why-not-nuclear-energy/
-
Okay. This year about 13 MW of coal is scheduled to be taken offline, which will be more than replaced by wind and solar: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20292
Solar has really only been economically competitive with carbon-intensive power sources in the past few years, so it's not really a surprise that it's ramping up very quickly now, or that it's taken until the past few years to ramp up so much.
I thought you were joking, but then I realized you meant they will be taking about 13,000 MW of coal power offline this year. As single typical coal plant is about 600 MW. That's nice. Let's assume these power plants operate at 50% capacity for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That's about 61 TWh. The U.S. consumes 25,000 TWh of energy each year. So we're talking about 0.24% of our energy consumption. I guess it's a start, but it's drop in the bucket.
I would argue that solar is only now catching up to fossil fuels in economic competitiveness because it's so convenient to disregard the negative externalities of fossil fuel consumption. If we accounted for the true costs, the picture wouldn't be so pretty.
-
We just need better batteries and solar will scale nicely. Nuclear is great . . . but is a pretty short term solution. At current consumption rates, there's only enough Uranium to last about 80 years. Build more plants and you're just reducing the amount of time it's a viable option.
Well, to start, this is off by about 120 years, and that is only considering the amount of economicly accessible uranium 235. It does not consider possible technological improvements in mining ability (think fracking for uranium mining). Nor does it consider the use of breed & feed power reactor designs, to transmutate uranium 238 into plutonium 239 and burn it in place. And most importantly, it doesn't even consider the abundance of thorium, for which all of it is transmutable & fissile, and is roughly three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than tin.
-
Okay. This year about 13 MW of coal is scheduled to be taken offline, which will be more than replaced by wind and solar: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20292
Solar has really only been economically competitive with carbon-intensive power sources in the past few years, so it's not really a surprise that it's ramping up very quickly now, or that it's taken until the past few years to ramp up so much.
I thought you were joking, but then I realized you meant they will be taking about 14,000 MW of coal (and petroleum) power offline this year. As single typical coal plant is about 600 MW. That's nice. Let's assume these power plants operate at 50% capacity for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. That's about 61 TWh. The U.S. consumes 25,000 TWh of energy each year. So we're talking about 0.24% of our energy consumption. I guess it's a start, but it's drop in the bucket.
I would argue that solar is only now catching up to fossil fuels in economic competitiveness because it's so convenient to disregard the negative externalities of fossil fuel consumption. If we accounted for the true costs, the picture wouldn't be so pretty.
Oops. Yes, I meant GW.
That 13 GW represents about 4% of US coal generation, so that seems like a decently large change for 1 year. That would result in complete elimination of the use of coal in 25 years.
I agree that negative externalities should be taken into account, but the (fairly limited) reading that I've done on those still would only have moved economic competitiveness by a few years at most.
-
Also, nuclear has some serious downsides that need to be considered. Seems like it could be worse than using fossil fuels.
Worse than catastrophic climate change? Nuclear certainly has some risks related to it, but compared to coal, it has an excellent life safety track record; and the externalities are really low. I've worked at both kinds of power plants. I would live near a nuke plant, but I would not live within a mile of a coal plant. Nothing green still grows around Beckjord power plant on the Ohio River in Ohio east of Cincinnati. There is more radioactivity released into the immediate environment by Beckjord alone in a single year than all of the nuke plants in the United States have ever done, including 3 Mile Island.
-
the only rational argument at this point seems to be about the severity of the predicted changes (and I do agree that this is far from certain, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't be doing anything about it).
Keep in mind that the remaining uncertainty about the severity of climate response to greenhouse gas inputs is entirely a question of timing. All of the worst case impacts still arrive eventually, it's just a matter of how long before they happen.
Some folks like to argue that the low-sensitivity climate possibility makes things almost tolerably disastrous by the end of the century, instead of truly catastrophic, without recognizing that this scenario just delays that catastrophy, not avoids it.
Eventually, all of earth's glaciers below 10k feet will melt. The ocean will warm, the ice sheets will collapse, island nations will disappear, most of Bangladesh will cease to exist, the permafrost will mostly melt, hundreds of species will cease to exist outside of zoos and thousands more will just be gone. Ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns will shift, severely alerting local climate by swapping historical weather patterns with other places. Most coral reefs will drown, agriculture and forestry will undergo dramatic long term restructuring, and humanity will spend billions on adaptive infrastructure to deal with it all.
The only unknown question is whether this is a 50 year timeline or a 500 year timeline. In the context of earth history, those are both essentially instantaneous changes.
I don't think people understand how expensive it could be to deal with the consequences. When rain stops falling in one place and starts falling in another, we could build a bunch of infrastructure to reroute the water to where we want it to be. But that will be really expensive and require a lot of energy to pump all that water in perpetuity (water is expensive to pump uphill). But what about loss of fisheries due to the ocean becoming too acidic? That's hard to even compensate for. And losing huge amounts of coastline (where the expensive real estate is). Manhattan is basically at sea level, as is much of Florida. Losing all that real estate and then moving all those people somewhere else will be expensive. And then all the unrest and refugees from nations that are going underwater. There could be a lot of global conflict. And wars are expensive too.
On the other side, the cost of going carbon free isn't that high. Solar power has plummeted in price. It's now beating out coal and nuclear in certain places based on price. With the costs continuing to fall as the scale rises, it's probably going to be taking over the grid in the nearish future. The engineering issues will be in enabling sufficient grid storage to meet nighttime demand, but those are solvable if we try, especially by integrating electric vehicles into the grid. And electric vehicles are already cheaper from a TCO standpoint. As people become more familiar with them and the batteries continue to get better, they are going to take over new car sales as well.
If we wait for markets to figure things out with the current incentive system (where carbon and other pollutants are not priced), it will take a lot longer for the transition to occur. During which time we put another 100PPM CO2 or so up there. If we just priced in the externalities through a carbon tax (and sent a check to each person for the per capita amount of the total revenue received so the tax would be revenue neutral and sunset itself over time) it would accelerate that transition in an efficient and market based manner.
Love that thinking -- I think the total cost of removing the current and newly produced carbon back to 1800 levels (probably still not enough really) would be in the 10s of trillions if not hundreds over a 10 year time period. So lets be conservative and say 5 Trillion per year. That is a very doable number worldwide.
What would that raise a gallon of gas to do you think? And coal? I'm just guessing the gas would cost $100 per gallon at that rate. So perhaps I'm off by a factor of 5 on the annual cost and it will only cost 1 trillion (probably that would support 1000 decarbonanation sequester plants worldwide). In that case would the tax per gallon only be $20.
So the problem with a significant gas tax (and I agree we need it) is that it won't provide enough to correct the problem and that very quickly ($5?) people would convert to solar electric and there would be no revenue. The problem with refunding the money to people is that you then have no money to address the clean up aspect. This shit just isn't going away on its own.
So it probably needs to be a combination of taxes on fossil fuels, incentives for efficiency, incentives for wind/solar/batteries and massive taxes derived from a non energy source. We screwed the pooch. We can pay the fiddler now or our grandkids will die as a result of our stupidity.
Sad, very sad.
-
Also, nuclear has some serious downsides that need to be considered. Seems like it could be worse than using fossil fuels.
Worse than catastrophic climate change? Nuclear certainly has some risks related to it, but compared to coal, it has an excellent life safety track record; and the externalities are really low. I've worked at both kinds of power plants. I would live near a nuke plant, but I would not live within a mile of a coal plant. Nothing green still grows around Beckjord power plant on the Ohio River in Ohio east of Cincinnati. There is more radioactivity released into the immediate environment by Beckjord alone in a single year than all of the nuke plants in the United States have ever done, including 3 Mile Island.
I'm posing a question. What about storage of radioactive waste for the ages?
-
We just need better batteries and solar will scale nicely. Nuclear is great . . . but is a pretty short term solution. At current consumption rates, there's only enough Uranium to last about 80 years. Build more plants and you're just reducing the amount of time it's a viable option.
Well, to start, this is off by about 120 years, and that is only considering the amount of economicly accessible uranium 235. It does not consider possible technological improvements in mining ability (think fracking for uranium mining). Nor does it consider the use of breed & feed power reactor designs, to transmutate uranium 238 into plutonium 239 and burn it in place. And most importantly, it doesn't even consider the abundance of thorium, for which all of it is transmutable & fissile, and is roughly three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than tin.
Moon Shadow is right, GuitarStv's number are unnecessarily pessimistic about our source of fissile material for nuclear energy. There are definitely realistic concerns about nuclear proliferation when you consider the alternatives like U233 and P239, however. Do The Math (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/01/nuclear-options/) is a great source of info on this:
Some reactors are designed to be especially efficient at generating 239Pu, and these are called breeder reactors, built to make weapons material. On the energy front, breeders open up 140 times more uranium supply than is found naturally in 235U, by using the ubiquitous 238U nuclei. The principle problem with breeders is that plutonium is chemically distinct from uranium, making it very straightforward to isolate and make bombs. Conversely, the two isotopes of uranium are notoriously difficult to separate (enrich). Enrichment is a significant hurdle to those who strive to have nuclear weapons. Abundant plutonium would change the calculus considerably, tipping the scale toward weapons proliferation.
A similar back-door trick can be used to breed 232Th into fissile 233U (taking a month to work through the beta decays). Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth’s crust than uranium. It’s not fissile out of the ground like 235U is: some assembly required. In that sense, it is not terribly different from 238U. One of the main differences is that the bred 233U is often contaminated with 232U, which has a 69 year half-life and is a prodigious emitter of high-energy gamma radiation along its decay chain. After one year, the escalating radiation level from uranium that is 5 parts per million 232U is seven times higher than that of reactor-grade plutonium, and about 50 times worse than weapons-grade plutonium (reference). And because the gamma ray emission is higher-energy than the corresponding emission from plutonium, it is harder to shield.
-
Also, nuclear has some serious downsides that need to be considered. Seems like it could be worse than using fossil fuels.
Worse than catastrophic climate change? Nuclear certainly has some risks related to it, but compared to coal, it has an excellent life safety track record; and the externalities are really low. I've worked at both kinds of power plants. I would live near a nuke plant, but I would not live within a mile of a coal plant. Nothing green still grows around Beckjord power plant on the Ohio River in Ohio east of Cincinnati. There is more radioactivity released into the immediate environment by Beckjord alone in a single year than all of the nuke plants in the United States have ever done, including 3 Mile Island.
I'm posing a question. What about storage of radioactive waste for the ages?
This is a popular misconception actually. Generally speaking, the half-life of a radioactive isotope and the 'intensity' of the radiation are inversely corrolated. Said another way, the most dangerous isotopes of fission byproducts have relatively short half-lives, of around 4 to 12 years, depending upon what we are talking about. A typical light water reactor, like what is found across the US, can only support a critical reaction if the concentration of uranium 235 is above 2% in the core. So fuel rods are typically 91% uranium 238 and 9% uranium 235 at the beginning of a fuel cycle. This also means that only about 7% of the total mass of the fuel is actually consumed in a normal fuel cycle. Some of the U238 is turned into plutonium 239, which is also fissile & quite dangerous, but it remains captive in the rod if it's not consumed. In Europe, these rods are typically kept for a decade or so in cooling pools, then recycled into new fuel rods, with the byproducts sealed up into balls of leaded glass for long term storage. However, in the US, the rule is that those rods are kept as they are until they are able to be transported and stored 'long term' in Yucca Mountian
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository)
However, the reason for this difference is geo-political, not environmental. You see, the US doesn't actually have any significant uranium deposits; so Yucca mountain is actually an artificial uranium/plutonium mine, in the event that the US is cut off from it's sources for geo-political reasons. The fuel rods stored in Yucca mountain would be economically viable as a source for new fuel rods within 200 years, as the way Europe does it isn't actually economically justifiable, because it's so dangerous to re-process them so soon. Europe does it mostly as an anti-proliferation program, drawing the plutonium back into the fuel cycle quickly.
So 'long term' in this context is a few hundred years, not the 'tens of thousands' of years claimed by so many articles.
-
<snip> ..... (increased efficiency offset by increased population).
This indirectly/partially gets at one part that nobody seems to talk about: population. Over generational time scales, we desperately need to bring our population explosion under control. People get very touchy about this, but as industrialization presumably proceeds and people want more of everything, the energy requirements increase along with all of the other impacts on the environment. At some point, more is not better.
-
<snip> ..... (increased efficiency offset by increased population).
This indirectly/partially gets at one part that nobody seems to talk about: population. Over generational time scales, we desperately need to bring our population explosion under control. People get very touchy about this, but as industrialization presumably proceeds and people want more of everything, the energy requirements increase along with all of the other impacts on the environment. At some point, more is not better.
Presumably, but every professional assessment of what that point is has, so far, been proven wrong. So we really don't know how large of a population the Earth's bio-system can actually support.
-
...the remaining uncertainty about the severity of climate response to greenhouse gas inputs is entirely a question of timing.
Some do believe this. Unfortunately, modeling efforts to this point have not been overly successful, so some believe otherwise.
Arguing about data is one thing. Arguing about predictive model results is another.
-
<snip> ..... (increased efficiency offset by increased population).
This indirectly/partially gets at one part that nobody seems to talk about: population. Over generational time scales, we desperately need to bring our population explosion under control. People get very touchy about this, but as industrialization presumably proceeds and people want more of everything, the energy requirements increase along with all of the other impacts on the environment. At some point, more is not better.
We have gotten our population under control. In the developed world, people are breeding below replacement rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition) and population growth is pretty much entirely due to immigration. Once the rest of the world catches up, total population will stabilize.
It's amazing how many people don't understand the concept of "carrying capacity" and the fact that population growth is not exponential but rather logistic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function#In_ecology:_modeling_population_growth). It only appears to be exponential because up to this point we've been observing the first half of the curve.
(Of course, that assumes that developed countries are allowed to maintain the conditions that caused the afore-mentioned demographic transition to happen. Several of the Republican presidential candidates seem Hell-bent on pushing policies that would cause a Malthusian catastrophe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe) instead.)
-
By the way, more on topic, after last night's debate, I'm calling it: Donald Trump is going to get the GOP nomination.
-
By the way, more on topic, after last night's debate, I'm calling it: Donald Trump is going to get the GOP nomination.
God, I hope not.
-
By the way, more on topic, after last night's debate, I'm calling it: Donald Trump is going to get the GOP nomination.
God, I hope not.
I'm conflicted about the possibility: if Trump and Clinton won their prospective nominations, Clinton would win easily (a marginally good thing).
However, I'd be much happier about a race between Bernie Sanders and a Republican who didn't suck. Although the optimal outcome, a Sanders presidency, would be much less assured, either likely outcome would be better than a Clinton presidency.
-
However, I'd be much happier about a race between Bernie Sanders and a Republican who didn't suck. Although the optimal outcome, a Sanders presidency, would be much less assured, either likely outcome would be better than a Clinton presidency.
Why would a Sanders presidency be the optimal outcome, in your view?
-
Why would a Sanders presidency be the optimal outcome, in your view?
I can't speak for Jack, but as for myself, from what I have seen and heard (which is admittedly limited), he is much less invested in large corporations, and thus, far less likely to enact policies in their favor solely because of their interests.
-
I hear Carly fiarino got some traction from the debate. I can totally see the Pubs getting behind her.
-
I hear Carly fiarino got some traction from the debate. I can totally see the Pubs getting behind her.
Yes she did. She did very well in the 'undercard' debate, and is likely to make it into the regular debate next time. I don't think Santorum nor Huckabee stand an ice cube's chance in hell, and Dr. Carson is going to drop out, but stands a good chance of getting Surgeon General appointment out of a winning Repub. As far as political experience goes, the field is deep, and would make a very experienced cabinet. Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency. Trump is just Trump, and is doing this for his own ego & to direct the talking points in a direction of his choosing; which is working. He might also get some kind of concessions from the actual nominee, in return for an endorsement. Maybe. I don't think Paul did himself any favors at this debate, but nor do I think that he harmed himself. I don't know what to think of the rest of them, yet.
-
However, I'd be much happier about a race between Bernie Sanders and a Republican who didn't suck. Although the optimal outcome, a Sanders presidency, would be much less assured, either likely outcome would be better than a Clinton presidency.
Why would a Sanders presidency be the optimal outcome, in your view?
He has the best position on campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform, tax reform, environmental issues, and trade (all of which Clinton, being the status-quo candidate, is weak on). He's also stronger than Paul Ryan on civil liberties and upholding the Bill of Rights, which is the most important issue of all.
I hear Carly fiarino got some traction from the debate. I can totally see the Pubs getting behind her.
She sucked at running HP; why would anyone think she'd do any better running America?
-
Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency.
The thought of him as a primary point of contact with other nations for statesmanship and diplomacy in negotiations concerning. The word "diplomacy" does not appear to be in his vocabulary. Manipulative and tenacious, yes. Diplomatic, no.
-
Yeah I was surprised to see respectable and ted cruz in the same sentence.
-
However, I'd be much happier about a race between Bernie Sanders and a Republican who didn't suck. Although the optimal outcome, a Sanders presidency, would be much less assured, either likely outcome would be better than a Clinton presidency.
Why would a Sanders presidency be the optimal outcome, in your view?
He has the best position on campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform, tax reform, environmental issues, and trade (all of which Clinton, being the status-quo candidate, is weak on). He's also stronger than Paul Ryan on civil liberties and upholding the Bill of Rights, which is the most important issue of all.
I don't think I agree with any of that. From what I've seen, all of his positions are either vague or impossible. Also, he's a self-described socialist after such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago; so how do you expect him to know how to do any of the things he claims to support?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf
I hear Carly fiarino got some traction from the debate. I can totally see the Pubs getting behind her.
She sucked at running HP; why would anyone think she'd do any better running America?
Running a company is, fortunately, not a very good indicator of a good political leader. Steve Jobs would have made for an incredibly incompetent president, imho. So, as far as I'm concerned, her history as a CEO of HP is neither a point in her favor, nor against.
-
Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency.
The thought of him as a primary point of contact with other nations for statesmanship and diplomacy in negotiations concerning. The word "diplomacy" does not appear to be in his vocabulary. Manipulative and tenacious, yes. Diplomatic, no.
That was never a requirement for Clinton or Kerry, so what would that matter now?
-
Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency.
The thought of him as a primary point of contact with other nations for statesmanship and diplomacy in negotiations concerning. The word "diplomacy" does not appear to be in his vocabulary. Manipulative and tenacious, yes. Diplomatic, no.
That was never a requirement for Clinton or Kerry, so what would that matter now?
MoonShadow, that's just silly. Whether you like Clinton or Kerry (and I am no fan of Clinton), they both have considerable diplomatic experience. Cruz has nothing.
Preference is one thing. But come on. Be honest.
-
Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency.
The thought of him as a primary point of contact with other nations for statesmanship and diplomacy in negotiations concerning. The word "diplomacy" does not appear to be in his vocabulary. Manipulative and tenacious, yes. Diplomatic, no.
That was never a requirement for Clinton or Kerry, so what would that matter now?
MoonShadow, that's just silly. Whether you like Clinton or Kerry (and I am no fan of Clinton), they both have considerable diplomatic experience. Cruz has nothing.
Preference is one thing. But come on. Be honest.
I am being honest. They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State. But neither of them are diplomatic. Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage. Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.
As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.
-
the only rational argument at this point seems to be about the severity of the predicted changes (and I do agree that this is far from certain, but I don't believe that means we shouldn't be doing anything about it).
Keep in mind that the remaining uncertainty about the severity of climate response to greenhouse gas inputs is entirely a question of timing. All of the worst case impacts still arrive eventually, it's just a matter of how long before they happen.
Some folks like to argue that the low-sensitivity climate possibility makes things almost tolerably disastrous by the end of the century, instead of truly catastrophic, without recognizing that this scenario just delays that catastrophy, not avoids it.
Eventually, all of earth's glaciers below 10k feet will melt. The ocean will warm, the ice sheets will collapse, island nations will disappear, most of Bangladesh will cease to exist, the permafrost will mostly melt, hundreds of species will cease to exist outside of zoos and thousands more will just be gone. Ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns will shift, severely alerting local climate by swapping historical weather patterns with other places. Most coral reefs will drown, agriculture and forestry will undergo dramatic long term restructuring, and humanity will spend billions on adaptive infrastructure to deal with it all.
The only unknown question is whether this is a 50 year timeline or a 500 year timeline. In the context of earth history, those are both essentially instantaneous changes.
I don't think people understand how expensive it could be to deal with the consequences. When rain stops falling in one place and starts falling in another, we could build a bunch of infrastructure to reroute the water to where we want it to be. But that will be really expensive and require a lot of energy to pump all that water in perpetuity (water is expensive to pump uphill). But what about loss of fisheries due to the ocean becoming too acidic? That's hard to even compensate for. And losing huge amounts of coastline (where the expensive real estate is). Manhattan is basically at sea level, as is much of Florida. Losing all that real estate and then moving all those people somewhere else will be expensive. And then all the unrest and refugees from nations that are going underwater. There could be a lot of global conflict. And wars are expensive too.
On the other side, the cost of going carbon free isn't that high. Solar power has plummeted in price. It's now beating out coal and nuclear in certain places based on price. With the costs continuing to fall as the scale rises, it's probably going to be taking over the grid in the nearish future. The engineering issues will be in enabling sufficient grid storage to meet nighttime demand, but those are solvable if we try, especially by integrating electric vehicles into the grid. And electric vehicles are already cheaper from a TCO standpoint. As people become more familiar with them and the batteries continue to get better, they are going to take over new car sales as well.
If we wait for markets to figure things out with the current incentive system (where carbon and other pollutants are not priced), it will take a lot longer for the transition to occur. During which time we put another 100PPM CO2 or so up there. If we just priced in the externalities through a carbon tax (and sent a check to each person for the per capita amount of the total revenue received so the tax would be revenue neutral and sunset itself over time) it would accelerate that transition in an efficient and market based manner.
Love that thinking -- I think the total cost of removing the current and newly produced carbon back to 1800 levels (probably still not enough really) would be in the 10s of trillions if not hundreds over a 10 year time period. So lets be conservative and say 5 Trillion per year. That is a very doable number worldwide.
What would that raise a gallon of gas to do you think? And coal? I'm just guessing the gas would cost $100 per gallon at that rate. So perhaps I'm off by a factor of 5 on the annual cost and it will only cost 1 trillion (probably that would support 1000 decarbonanation sequester plants worldwide). In that case would the tax per gallon only be $20.
So the problem with a significant gas tax (and I agree we need it) is that it won't provide enough to correct the problem and that very quickly ($5?) people would convert to solar electric and there would be no revenue. The problem with refunding the money to people is that you then have no money to address the clean up aspect. This shit just isn't going away on its own.
So it probably needs to be a combination of taxes on fossil fuels, incentives for efficiency, incentives for wind/solar/batteries and massive taxes derived from a non energy source. We screwed the pooch. We can pay the fiddler now or our grandkids will die as a result of our stupidity.
Sad, very sad.
The first step is to stop dumping more into the air. After we can get there, maybe we can start to remove some from the air somehow. I think a ratcheting tax that starts at $100 per ton of CO2 equivalent and goes up $10/year for 10 years to cap at $200 would be more than enough to do the job. That equates to about $1 per gallon of gas ($2 after 10 years) or 5 cents per kWh of coal or 2.5 cents per kWh of natural gas. That would probably be enough to get utilities to shift to solar and wind quickly and for motorists to switch to electric cars without subsidies. I'm sure some businesses will engage in creative financing models where the sales price of your electric car can be dropped in advance by signing over your next X years of carbon tax rebate payments.
-
Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency.
The thought of him as a primary point of contact with other nations for statesmanship and diplomacy in negotiations concerning. The word "diplomacy" does not appear to be in his vocabulary. Manipulative and tenacious, yes. Diplomatic, no.
That was never a requirement for Clinton or Kerry, so what would that matter now?
MoonShadow, that's just silly. Whether you like Clinton or Kerry (and I am no fan of Clinton), they both have considerable diplomatic experience. Cruz has nothing.
Preference is one thing. But come on. Be honest.
I am being honest. They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State. But neither of them are diplomatic. Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage. Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.
As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.
Re the bold: I'm confused. Are you talking about the Republicans and Swift Boaters during the campaign?
Also, other than being born outside the country, I don't know why you would think Cruz would be a good SoS. He's perhaps the most inflammatory and least diplomatic member of the Senate. He would be a disaster.
-
Ted Cruz would make a respectable vice or Sec of State, but I think he's aiming high for the actual presidency.
The thought of him as a primary point of contact with other nations for statesmanship and diplomacy in negotiations concerning. The word "diplomacy" does not appear to be in his vocabulary. Manipulative and tenacious, yes. Diplomatic, no.
That was never a requirement for Clinton or Kerry, so what would that matter now?
MoonShadow, that's just silly. Whether you like Clinton or Kerry (and I am no fan of Clinton), they both have considerable diplomatic experience. Cruz has nothing.
Preference is one thing. But come on. Be honest.
I am being honest. They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State. But neither of them are diplomatic. Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage. Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.
As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.
Look, you may be right as far as they are concerned. But seriously, you are trying to put Ted Cruz on that level? Jesus, man.
-
The first step is to stop dumping more into the air. After we can get there, maybe we can start to remove some from the air somehow.
That part is easy. CO2 is plant food. Just let the forests grow. Which they have been doing, on net.
But I have some questions for you to ponder, forummm. Since the Earth is a closed envirnonmental system, and fossil fuels are (by definition) the remains of ancient plantlife, how did the carbon get into the ground without being present in the atmosphere first in ancient Earth? And if that carbon was in the atmosphere at one time before the evolution of plantlife, what kind of effect on plantlife would a doubling of the CO2 concentration do you think is most likely?
-
I don't think I agree with any of that. From what I've seen, all of his positions are either vague or impossible. Also, he's a self-described socialist after such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago; so how do you expect him to know how to do any of the things he claims to support?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf
First, I don't give a fuck what Sanders calls himself; he can claim to represent the Ham Sandwich Party for all I care. It doesn't actually make him one, though, nor is he genuinely a socialist: he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that. Besides, even if Sanders were a socialist, so what? Invoking cold-war paranoia is not a persuasive argument, and maybe a little bit of socialism is exactly what we need to counterbalance the ultra-corporatism we're mired in today. Sanders may be about as far left as you get in mainstream American politics in 2015, but that's still way to the right relative to the rest of the world.
Also, I have no idea where you got that "such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago" bullshit; most of Europe, which is more socialist than anything in Sanders' platform, is working just fine. (Note that I'm referring to places like the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France; southern Europe's financial issues stem from corruption, not "socialism.")
Second, Sanders' campaign website's "issues" page names specific legislation he's introduced or co-sponsored. I'm not sure how anything could possibly be less vague than the actual bill that would implement the policy!
Besides, more to the point, Sanders' "socialism" is actually less authoritarian than most Republicans' platforms. At least he doesn't want to create a theocratic surveillance state with no Bill of Rights!
-
I don't think I agree with any of that. From what I've seen, all of his positions are either vague or impossible. Also, he's a self-described socialist after such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago; so how do you expect him to know how to do any of the things he claims to support?
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1353953160genovesethequestion.pdf
First, I don't give a fuck what Sanders calls himself; he can claim to represent the Ham Sandwich Party for all I care. It doesn't actually make him one, though, nor is he genuinely a socialist:
So you believe him when he talks about issues, but don't believe him when he discusses his driving ideology?
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Besides, even if Sanders were a socialist, so what?
I already mentioned that I respect Bernie for his honesty, but you just told me that you don't believe he is being honest, while at the same time you consider him the ideal choice. I find such an opinion bizarre. If he is honest, it matters to me if he thinks he is a socialist; because either he is unaware or indifferent to what that term means & what the ideology has begot, or he is aware and condones the results that such ideology always acheives. So by claiming he is a socialist, whether or not he actually would act that way, tells me he is either ignorant or malicious. I'm not sure which is actually worse.
However, if your assessment is correct, then he is just another liar. Which makes him no worse than the rest, I suppose.
Invoking cold-war paranoia is not a persuasive argument,
I didn't. And I guess you didn't bother to read the article I provided.
and maybe a little bit of socialism is exactly what we need to counterbalance the ultra-corporatism we're mired in today.
What do you get when you mix socialism with corporatism?
Put your hand down, Adolf!
Sanders may be about as far left as you get in mainstream American politics in 2015, but that's still way to the right relative to the rest of the world.
Also not a argument.
Also, I have no idea where you got that "such ideas were already proven self-destructive a generation ago" bullshit; most of Europe, which is more socialist than anything in Sanders' platform, is working just fine. (Note that I'm referring to places like the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France; southern Europe's financial issues stem from corruption, not "socialism.")
I take exception to that claim.
http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/scandinavian-socialism-argument/
Second, Sanders' campaign website's "issues" page names specific legislation he's introduced or co-sponsored. I'm not sure how anything could possibly be less vague than the actual bill that would implement the policy!
I'll take another look.
EDIT: Nope. Same as the last time I looked at it. A lot of text that amounts to either vagueness or impossibility. Often both.
Besides, more to the point, Sanders' "socialism" is actually less authoritarian than most Republicans' platforms. At least he doesn't want to create a theocratic surveillance state with no Bill of Rights!
I wouldn't be any more happy with that outcome. I wasn't arguing for someone else, I was arguing against Bernie as an ideal choice, by your own standards. I asked for a supporter's viewpoint, and you hand me these silly talking points rather than rational reasons. And now you are mad at me for pointing out that your reasons are silly.
-
When you start using sources like libsdebunked you've stopped treating the other side as if they're intelligent human beings who happen to disagree with you. There's an amazing ability of humans to think that they truly understand both sides of an argument and have made an objective identification of the superior argument while people who disagree have simply failed to understand the arguments which seem so simple to them. The idea that the people on the other side might have done the same thing you have seems inconceivable.
From there we just get into echo chambers where nobody really cares what the other side think because you already know they're wrong.
-
I am being honest. They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State. But neither of them are diplomatic. Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage. Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.
As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.
Re the bold: I'm confused. Are you talking about the Republicans and Swift Boaters during the campaign?
I expect MoonShadow means the Iran deal. Another thing he's wrong about.
-
When you start using sources like libsdebunked you've stopped treating the other side as if they're intelligent human beings who happen to disagree with you.
When you start using the source of information as an argument against it's consideration, you've stopped pretending to treat the other side as if you ever believed they were an intelligent human being who happens to disagree with you.
And I'm not a republican, either, so just because I don't bow to the fake data of the democrats, doesn't mean I disagree with you.
-
As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.
Look, you may be right as far as they are concerned. But seriously, you are trying to put Ted Cruz on that level? Jesus, man.
No, I'm not. I'm mostly speculating as to the 'booby prizes' these guys are shooting for. I'm not the one who took this topic down this road, Kris.
-
I am being honest. They both have diplomatic experience, yes; mostly since being appointed to Sec of State. But neither of them are diplomatic. Both suffer from a terminal misunderstanding of the cultures they are/were expected to engage. Clinton didn't really bother, save for her self interests & the Clinton Foundation; but at least Kerry honestly tried, but got his lunch eaten by a group whose history & official religion openly support lying to outsiders for personal and collective gain.
As for preferences, I voted for Kerry in 2004, but the lessor of evils is still evil.
Re the bold: I'm confused. Are you talking about the Republicans and Swift Boaters during the campaign?
I expect MoonShadow means the Iran deal.
I do mean that. I wouldn't hold the whole 'swift boat' thing against Kerry.
Another thing he's wrong about.
What part would I be wrong about? That Kerry didn't understand who he was negotiating with, and got his ass handed to him by professional liars?
-
Your source decided that it was going to dismiss any and all research into measuring the happiness of an individual because it didn't like the idea that the US scored worse than Scandinavia. It then came up with its own unrelated standard, the suicide rate, and claimed that this was now going to be used in place of measuring happiness in order to reveal how happy people were. They weren't even trying to be impartial, they were trying to do anything they could to discredit the information in any way they could.
One of the more amazing things about it though was when it went "Scandinavia isn't even that socialist, 46% of the economy is public compared to America's 40%, they're only a little more socialist than we are". They just went ahead and redefined socialist from the meaning that everyone has used for the last 80 years or so to 1920s full worker ownership of the means of production. Then, after creating this straw man of socialism which Scandinavia isn't, they used the fact that Scandinavia isn't it to attack their straw man while completely missing the whole point, that maybe the US could try and learn from some of the good things about Scandinavia.
Nobody was saying "full worker control of the means of production is super successful, look at Scandinavia, they have that". They were saying "maybe look at some of their successes and try and emulate their methods".
I didn't dismiss your source, I read it and it was dumb as hell. It made no attempt to understand the arguments of the other side. Where possible it tried to actively change the subject or to create straw men misrepresenting the arguments of the other side so they could be avoided while ridiculing them.
-
Also, other than being born outside the country, I don't know why you would think Cruz would be a good SoS. He's perhaps the most inflammatory and least diplomatic member of the Senate. He would be a disaster.
Perhaps I didn't put it well, let me restate.
I think that most of the republicans on the stage are likely to consider Cruz to be a sound appointment to SoS; or if not, that Cruz believes it to be so. My own opinion on Cruz is actually irrelevant. I'm openly speculating about alterior motives, because these guys are not stupid. Most of them have to know they can't win this, but that a lot of cabinet members come from former competitors to the nomination, as payback for their support after they lost. That's exactly how Clinton got SoS.
-
Your source decided that it was going to dismiss any and all research into measuring the happiness of an individual because it didn't like the idea that the US scored worse than Scandinavia.
Excellent cherrypicking.
Okay, you don't like my source. How about the Economist?
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel
"The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.
Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%."
My point is that none of the Nordics are particularly good examples of democratic socialism working. Because it stopped working for them, and they changed. Because they could change. It works well for them, but it's not accurate to call them socialists anymore.
-
Your source decided that it was going to dismiss any and all research into measuring the happiness of an individual because it didn't like the idea that the US scored worse than Scandinavia.
Excellent cherrypicking.
Okay, you don't like my source. How about the Economist?
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21571136-politicians-both-right-and-left-could-learn-nordic-countries-next-supermodel
"The idea of lean Nordic government will come as a shock both to French leftists who dream of socialist Scandinavia and to American conservatives who fear that Barack Obama is bent on “Swedenisation”. They are out of date. In the 1970s and 1980s the Nordics were indeed tax-and-spend countries. Sweden’s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. Astrid Lindgren, the inventor of Pippi Longstocking, was forced to pay more than 100% of her income in taxes. But tax-and-spend did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth-richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993.
Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%."
My point is that none of the Nordics are particularly good examples of democratic socialism working. Because it stopped working for them, and they changed. Because they could change. It works well for them, but it's not accurate to call them socialists anymore.
You're not listening. But that's fine. You don't have to. It's a free country.
-
Also, other than being born outside the country, I don't know why you would think Cruz would be a good SoS. He's perhaps the most inflammatory and least diplomatic member of the Senate. He would be a disaster.
Perhaps I didn't put it well, let me restate.
I think that most of the republicans on the stage are likely to consider Cruz to be a sound appointment to SoS; or if not, that Cruz believes it to be so. My own opinion on Cruz is actually irrelevant. I'm openly speculating about alterior motives, because these guys are not stupid. Most of them have to know they can't win this, but that a lot of cabinet members come from former competitors to the nomination, as payback for their support after they lost. That's exactly how Clinton got SoS.
I think Cruz has been running for president for a long time. He's not in it for SoS. His dad has been telling him from age 4 that he's "the anointed one" and "destined for greatness", etc. He's packed the kid full of self-importance and now the man has that ingrained in his soul. All presidential candidates think highly of themselves, but Cruz perhaps rivals only Trump for self-regard. It just drips from everything he does.
-
You're not listening. But that's fine. You don't have to. It's a free country.
I read your words, I just don't agree with your position here.
But like you said, it's a free country, and we can agree on that.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I take exception to that claim.
http://www.libsdebunked.com/socialism/scandinavian-socialism-argument/
Do you understand the irony in linking to a site that says similar things about Scandinavia that I'm saying about Sanders?
Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist
Scandinavian countries have certain socialist characteristics such as high taxes and extensive welfare systems. However, these countries have relatively capitalistic markets. Scandinavian businesses are mostly free from regulation, nationalization and protectionism.
... exactly like the policies Sanders wants to enact here!
More to the point, these characteristics are unlike the policies the Republicans want to enact, which are often handouts to very large business (and thus unfair or harmful to the small businesses that actually drive the economy). Regulation (of the good sort that Sanders wants) keeps the playing field level; Republicans would destroy the market by allowing it to devolve into oligopoly.
So, sure, Sanders is "socialist" in the same way Scandinavia is "socialist." Either you agree with your own source and thus agree with me that Sanders is not an extremist, or you continue to pretend he's some kind of boogeyman and thus discredit your own source. You can't have it both ways.
We can also look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In the “capitalist” United States, government spending is equal to roughly 40% of the national GDP. In the “socialist” Norway, government spending is equal to roughly 46% of the national GDP. (Source.)
It is dishonest to compare Norway to the US and call one an example of successful socialism and the other an example of failed capitalism when both governments spend similar amounts of money on a percentage basis.
The article fails here because it does not consider what the two governments are spending their money on. Norway is superior because it doesn't waste so much of its GDP on a gigantic standing army, imprisoning huge fractions of its population, etc.
"Since then the Nordics have changed course—mainly to the right. Government’s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18 percentage points, is lower than France’s and could soon be lower than Britain’s. Taxes have been cut: the corporate rate is 22%, far lower than America’s. The Nordics have focused on balancing the books. While Mr Obama and Congress dither over entitlement reform, Sweden has reformed its pension system (see Free exchange). Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP; America’s is 7%."
My point is that none of the Nordics are particularly good examples of democratic socialism working. Because it stopped working for them, and they changed. Because they could change. It works well for them, but it's not accurate to call them socialists anymore.
That bit about the deficit brings up an interesting point: why is America's deficit so high? The answer, of course, is Republican policy: when Republicans are in control, the deficit goes up; when Democrats are in control, the deficit goes down. Maybe "fiscally-irresponsible Republican" should replace "socialist" as the next evil boogeyman label.
-
I think Cruz has been running for president for a long time. He's not in it for SoS. His dad has been telling him from age 4 that he's "the anointed one" and "destined for greatness", etc. He's packed the kid full of self-importance and now the man has that ingrained in his soul. All presidential candidates think highly of themselves, but Cruz perhaps rivals only Trump for self-regard. It just drips from everything he does.
That's a reasonable perspective. I agree that Cruz is trying to win the nomination. I think that they all are, but this process is demanding, and it's easier for these egos to keep going if the idea of a 'parting gift' is available.
Again, I'm only speculating.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay
I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...
https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals
I can play this game as well as anyone.
EDIT: I also have to point out that the page called StupidThingsConservatesSay is noticably lacking in actual quotes. Even quotes taken out of context.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay
I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...
https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals
I can play this game as well as anyone.
Clearly you missed the joke. I was parodying your earlier presentation of a clearly biased source full of straw men by finding the single stupidest anti conservative political commentary I could find (with about 15 seconds of effort). I then passed it off as a serious criticism of your views in order to illustrate how silly it was for you to try to do the same earlier. I failed to count on your American lack of self awareness and desire to immediately retaliate to any situation you don't fully understand with greater force. That was my bad.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Um, can you name a single congressional republican or republican senator, with power in their party who is not one of those? I am seriously asking, because I can't.
-
Currently living in Ohio, I would probably vote for Kasich. I like what I see...people need to get to know him better.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay
I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...
https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals
I can play this game as well as anyone.
Clearly you missed the joke. I was parodying your earlier presentation of a clearly biased source full of straw men by finding the single stupidest anti conservative political commentary I could find (with about 15 seconds of effort). I then passed it off as a serious criticism of your views in order to illustrate how silly it was for you to try to do the same earlier.
You apparently misconstrued my efforts earlier. I chose a biases source full of strawmen arguments, with much less than 15 seconds of research time, because it was good enough as a real counterpoint to your biased postings.
I failed to count on your American lack of self awareness and desire to immediately retaliate to any situation you don't fully understand with greater force. That was my bad.
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Um, can you name a single congressional republican or republican senator, with power in their party who is not one of those? I am seriously asking, because I can't.
Any one? I don't know for sure, but I'd say that Rand Paul has a fair argument for being that person. There may be others. But Jack did not say that the Republican party was (choose one) of the above, he said they were all of the above. I can just as easily point out how the vast majority of congressional democrats are one of the charges I counter-pointed above; but again, none of them are all of them. Implying that those "qualities" are part of the Republican party platform also implies that they are all common features of Republicans generally.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Maybe read this and learn about how anti civil rights Conservatives are.
https://www.facebook.com/StupidThingsConservativeSay
I'll see your pointless, partisan facebook page and raise you another pointless, partisan facebook page with three times the likes...
https://www.facebook.com/LaughingAtLiberals
I can play this game as well as anyone.
Clearly you missed the joke. I was parodying your earlier presentation of a clearly biased source full of straw men by finding the single stupidest anti conservative political commentary I could find (with about 15 seconds of effort). I then passed it off as a serious criticism of your views in order to illustrate how silly it was for you to try to do the same earlier.
You apparently misconstrued my efforts earlier. I chose a biases source full of strawmen arguments, with much less than 15 seconds of research time, because it was good enough as a real counterpoint to your biased postings.
I failed to count on your American lack of self awareness and desire to immediately retaliate to any situation you don't fully understand with greater force. That was my bad.
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Also you seem to have imagined a history of biased postings of mine in this topic which your libsdebunked addressed. You think we're fighting and you've created a history of imagined sleights in which I started it and you responded to me with libsdebunked. That didn't actually happen. Like at all.
-
he's barely further left than Eisenhower, for crying out loud! You ever learn about Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex?" Nothing in Sanders' platform is any more radical than that.
Not yet. And comparing him to Eisenhower, particularly using one data point, is not a sound argument.
Other similarities to Eisenhower:
- They are both pro-science
- They both support civil rights
- Eisenhower opposed McCarthyism; Sanders opposes the PATRIOT Act
- They both like Social Security (Eisenhower expanded it during his presidency)
All of these stand in stark contrast to the modern Republican platform, which is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit. It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone. You just boiled down the political opinions of one-third of the nation into a bumper sticker like, "If you can read, thank a teacher. If you can read English, thank a soldier". Do you really think you are the rational actor here?
Um, can you name a single congressional republican or republican senator, with power in their party who is not one of those? I am seriously asking, because I can't.
Any one? I don't know for sure, but I'd say that Rand Paul has a fair argument for being that person. There may be others. But Jack did not say that the Republican party was (choose one) of the above, he said they were all of the above. I can just as easily point out how the vast majority of congressional democrats are one of the charges I counter-pointed above; but again, none of them are all of them. Implying that those "qualities" are part of the Republican party platform also implies that they are all common features of Republicans generally.
It is, IME, a feature of the leadership of the GOP. Yes, you might find a low level person that does not follow the leadership and you might, possibly find a leader who compermised. That all said, I cannot think of ANY member of the GOP leadership that those or most of those are nit consistent. I'll check out Rand Paul, but from my limited understanding of him, I thought he agreed with the leadership.
-
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Well, good for you. Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland? Are you another capitalist pig?
-
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Well, good for you. Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland? Are you another capitalist pig?
Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.
-
It is, IME, a feature of the leadership of the GOP. Yes, you might find a low level person that does not follow the leadership and you might, possibly find a leader who compermised. That all said, I cannot think of ANY member of the GOP leadership that those or most of those are nit consistent. I'll check out Rand Paul, but from my limited understanding of him, I thought he agreed with the leadership.
I'm not a republican, and generally find it a bit repulsive to have to argue in favor of either national party, but this is just an irresponsible & uninformed position to take. I hate defending these people from inane accusations, because they don't deserve it. Neither do the dems. Please don't make me do this.
Please tell me that you don't vote.
-
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Well, good for you. Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland? Are you another capitalist pig?
Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.
Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell? Is that where your wife is from?
-
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Well, good for you. Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland? Are you another capitalist pig?
Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.
Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell? Is that where your wife is from?
This appears to have gotten a little personal a few posts back. Can we please take it down a notch?
-
Currently living in Ohio, I would probably vote for Kasich. I like what I see...people need to get to know him better.
Agree. He might actually be able to communicate with the house/senate (democrat or republican). That ability seems to be lacking in many of the other candidates.
-
[T]he modern Republican platform...is anti-science, anti-civil-rights, pro-surveillance-state and anti-social-safety-net.
I read your whole post, but cut most out because I just can't get past this. Where do you get this idea? That is about as accurate as saying that the Democratic party platform is anti-religion, anti-American, pro-statist and 'eat-the-rich'. It's bullshit.
You've got to be fucking kidding me! If you can watch Republicans do things like...
- deny evolution and/or climate change and find every way they can to funnel tax money to religious organizations (e.g. via school choice vouchers and redirecting Planned Parenthood funding to "abstinence only" organizations)
- enact rules to limit voting rights, gerrymander everything to Hell and back, defend murderous police (because minorities are "thugs" and "criminals" who must have deserved it), and (of course) support the War on Drugs
- support the PATRIOT Act, unconstitutional acts perpetrated by the NSA, SOPA/PIPA/CISPA/ACTA/Trans-Pacific Partnership (all of which are allegedly for the purpose of "protecting copyright" but would authorize spying on citizens via the Internet), etc.
- and attempt over and over again to put restrictions on things like food stamps, medicaid and welfare just to punish the poor (we can tell they're purely punitive because administering rules like mandatory drug testing costs more money than they save)
...and still not see the truth, then there's no point in trying to enlighten you.
It doesn't apply to anyone, much less everyone.
Sure, you can't get everybody to toe the party line all the time, but most of the Republican front-runners score 4 out of 4 on those counts, and a bunch more score 3 out of 4.
-
I'm 100% behind Donald Trump and I implore everyone else to get behind him.
How long can we go before his fraud is exposed?
And to be honest, if he gets elected...he's no better or worse than the garbage that gets shoveled in and out of office every 4 years.
Also--I don't believe he's a Republican.
-
I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.
I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.
And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.
I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.
I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.
-
I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.
I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.
And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.
I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.
I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.
Sorry to admit it as well but it was refreshing to hear someone with that level of exposure say this. Made me wonder, "as I accumulate more wealth and continue on my journey into FI, maybe I should start actively donating to candidates." I mean, I'm not billionaire nor will I be. But 4 figure donations probably get you something, don't they?
EDIT: bolding fail
-
I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. [bold]Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. [/bold]I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.
I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.
And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.
I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.
I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.
Sorry to admit it as well but it was refreshing to hear someone with that level of exposure say this. Made me wonder, "as I accumulate more wealth and continue on my journey into FI, maybe I should start actively donating to candidates." I mean, I'm not billionaire nor will I be. But 4 figure donations probably get you something, don't they?
4 figures can definitely buy you some "good will" from local officials. Maybe less impactful for a congressman, but I think they might still take your call.
-
I caught a little of the debate. My thinking is that Trump would be the best of the bunch of the Republicans. The others are just typical politicians and are not bringing anything useful or valuable or different. Trump is definitely not the best the country has to offer (by a long shot). But he's much more honest than everyone else on that stage. His bombastic behavior would be dangerous for international relations. But so would everyone else on that stage. They are all in line with the current Republican status quo in foreign policy: pushing for more pointless, counterproductive, and unnecessary wars. Rand used to be more reasonable on foreign policy, but he's changed his positions on that, so I don't know what he's actually for at this point. Trump openly admits that the campaign finance system is broken and that, like all other rich businessmen, he participates in the buying of politicians. And that they pay him back with their actions. He's 100% right. But no one else in politics would say that. I think he's the best candidate on that side to actually bring positive change to the country through his own bombast and honesty. Yes he says hideous things outright. But those are similar things to what the others say or indicate they believe (or want you to think they believe)--they just use code words. Or say it in a more sensitive way. But the meaning is there.
I think Trump is actually a pretty smart guy in a number of ways. He's also a dumbass. But he's smart too.
And the alternatives aren't great. Christie is just a corrupt pol whose supposed strength is that he's a jerk. Jeb seems to be running as the reincarnate of his brother (many of the same advisors and similar talking points), and who doesn't want 8 more years of that. Rand was saying some really good stuff awhile ago but now he's reversed himself, so who knows what you're getting--plus he's always been wrong on a bunch of stuff (like saying that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race). Huckabee is a dishonest shill for whatever people are paying him to sell (like vitamins to cure diabetes that don't work). Etc.
I don't remember that much about Pataki from when he was in office--I think he was generally OK. But he has no chance. No one in the also-ran debate does.
I think I'd have to vote for Trump at this point if I had to pick from those 17.
You could tell from the questioning how much Fox News (i.e. the establishment Republican Party) wants Trump and Rand out of the race. They are dangerous to their establishment presentation. Where each of the candidates is really just the same set of policies (with very minor and inconsequential differentiation--and when in office they all actually act about the same way so any differentiation is essentially meaningless) but with a different face on it. It's the illusion of choice. It's "change" on the outside but continuity on the inside.
On the surface they present different flavors of how they'd cut taxes for the rich, different flavors for how they'd be aggressive militarily, different flavors of how religious they are (how much they hate and discriminate against or hate but can still tolerate gays; how much god comes up in their speech; how much they'd destroy the ability to get an abortion), etc. But they're all the same guy really. They all have more or less the same policies and will bow to more or less the same rich donors (who told them which policies to have in the first place).
That's why Trump and Rand are so dangerous with speaking their mind and truth telling. It's a shame that Rand is backing away from his prior statements. His father was willing to be booed during a debate for his honesty. But Rand is not. He's going to lose as a result unless he changes that. He had a really good chance, but he's blowing it so far. It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
-
It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
-
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
It isn't. But I think that's testament to how used to lying and dishonesty we are from politicians. That it is somehow refreshing that a politician is open about his racism and misogyny hopefully will wake some people up to the state of politics.
-
It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
I see them all as about the same amount of mental. I think the most dangerous thing a president can do is start or inflame counterproductive wars, and they are all in various degrees of doing that on various fronts. I didn't say it was OK to be a racist misogynist. But the policies the others expound have about the same effects as anything Trump says he would do. So whether you're pursuing a policy and saying it's because of your openly racist and misogynist beliefs vs pursuing a very similar policy while using code words or not stating a reason why--what's the difference? The difference I see is that Trump's ideas will get held up from implementation because of his stated motivations. The others may get theirs through because they said more polite things.
-
That quiz is definitely weighted to have the results be "Libertarian", but I'm pretty much in that camp already anyway.
If Trump wins the GOP nomination I'd vote for him without hesitation. A guy who says what he thinks with ZERO fear of the bleeding hearted liberal gamesmanship, the gotcha journalism, and the manufactured "I'm so offended" BS is refreshing.
He says what so many of us are thinking already. He won't clarify his remarks to appease the liberal wrath. He won't go on a liberal-sanctioned Apology Tour to get back into their good graces. They hate him because he couldn't care less about what they think, among other things.
With Trump in the White House I doubt people would be taking advantage of the USA anymore. He wouldn't be going around bowing before heads of state and apologizing for his country around the world. He wouldn't be putting the screws to US business interests in favor of foreign interests. He'd enforce the laws ALREADY on the books, as B Hussein Obama and Eric Holder swore to do but didn't. He'd take care of our borders. He'd call them ILLEGAL ALIENS, which is what they are.
He'd get rid of Obamacare if he could, not only because it is a bloated bag of rotting fecal matter but also because it has made health care UNaffordable for people like my parents. He'd get rid of it because it was passed on blatant lies out of the mouth of B Hussein Obama: "If you like your doctor, you can KEEP your doctor. Period. And if you like your insurance, you can KEEP your insurance. Period".
So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.
But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.
-
So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.
But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.
Which 4 years was that? I don't see any 4 year period in the last 30* where debt has doubled.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
*I didn't look beyond 30 years because why.
EDIT: I can't find a single 4 year period in which national debt doubled going back to 1950. That's not to say the debt doubled in the 4 years leading up to 1950 but that's as far as I went.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
-
So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.
But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.
Which 4 years was that? I don't see any 4 year period in the last 30* where debt has doubled.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
*I didn't look beyond 30 years because why.
I admire your restraint that this was the only aspect of that post you decided to comment on.
-
So he says things that give liberals the opportunity to declare to us how offended they are. So what? He certainly couldn't do a worse job of dividing the country and misusing the IRS and the NSA than the current administration has. I doubt he'd double the national debt in less than 4 years after saying that if he didn't cut it in half, he didn't deserve the Presidency.
But more importantly, he scares the living hell out of Republican Rhinos...and for that reason alone I'd support him right to the finish line.
Which 4 years was that? I don't see any 4 year period in the last 30* where debt has doubled.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
*I didn't look beyond 30 years because why.
I admire your restraint that this was the only aspect of that post you decided to comment on.
Yea, well. No reason to get into an arguing match about personal preference when facts and data are present. ;-)
-
Crap, it was a Democrat that more than doubled national debt in a 4 year period!
It was FDR from 1940-1944; $42,967,531,037.68 to $201,003,387,221.13
-
Crap, it was a Democrat that more than doubled national debt in a 4 year period!
It was FDR from 1940-1944; $42,967,531,037.68 to $201,003,387,221.13
I bet it was all spent on liberal foreign aid. Helping out those rich British, French, Polish, Austrian, Belgian, ...
-
I bet it was all spent on liberal foreign aid. Helping out those rich British, French, Polish, Austrian, Belgian, ...
I'd imagine it's actually argued as a good thing. Y'know, taking down those Nationalist Socialists.
-
It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.
-
It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.
To be fair, Wiz Khalifa and Lil' Wayne aren't running for one of the most powerful leadership positions in the free world, nor do they have a responsibility to their constituents.
On another note, I would definitely listen to Trump's rap album at least once... if I made it through Wiseau's "The Room", I can make it through anything.
-
It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.
To be fair, Wiz Khalifa and Lil' Wayne aren't running for one of the most powerful leadership positions in the free world, nor do they have a responsibility to their constituents.
On another note, I would definitely listen to Trump's rap album at least once... if I made it through Wiseau's "The Room", I can make it through anything.
well it kinda does matter as racist misoginist voting rappers and their 10s of millions of followers generally vote Democratic. Yet ironically it is the Pubs who are painted as racist misoginist by the race baiting media. I guess if you are voting Democrat based on social issues you just have to over look their huge racist misoginist voting block and forget that one of their primary platform planks is terminating little babies. Not that their is anything wrong with that.
-
It's easy to hit Trump because of his overt racism and misogyny. But at least he's being honest about it instead of winking and nodding to people using code words.
I think Trump is the only person on that side who can't be controlled by the donors who control everyone in politics.
Maybe, but don't forget he's MENTAL.
And since when did it become okay to be a racist misogynist so long as you are honest about it?
Oy, it's gonna be a long 16 months...
well it is OK to be a racist misogynist if you are a black rapper.
To be fair, Wiz Khalifa and Lil' Wayne aren't running for one of the most powerful leadership positions in the free world, nor do they have a responsibility to their constituents.
On another note, I would definitely listen to Trump's rap album at least once... if I made it through Wiseau's "The Room", I can make it through anything.
well it kinda does matter as racist misoginist voting rappers and their 10s of millions of followers generally vote Democratic. Yet ironically it is the Pubs who are painted as racist misoginist by the race baiting media. I guess if you are voting Democrat based on social issues you just have to over look their huge racist misoginist voting block and forget that one of their primary platform planks is terminating little babies. Not that their is anything wrong with that.
I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?
-
I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?
One example from a recent thread in this forum: http://genius.com/Rich-boy-throw-some-ds-lyrics
-
I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?
One example from a recent thread in this forum: http://genius.com/Rich-boy-throw-some-ds-lyrics
I'm not up with the latest slang. What was racist in there? There is use of the N word, but my understanding is that it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) in that context.
-
... it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) ...
That opens up a whole different discussion branch: is it the sayer/writer or the hearer/reader (or some third party) who gets to decide whether something is ___ist?
-
... it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) ...
That opens up a whole different discussion branch: is it the sayer/writer or the hearer/reader (or some third party) who gets to decide whether something is ___ist?
The inability of language to ever fully signify is a deconstructionist rabbit hole that could lead us down a linguistically-nihilistic adventure that eventually negates the entire purpose of language, communication and, by extension, this forum.
The short answer is: both/and.
-
I don't listen to rap. Who are the rappers racist against? What are some examples of the things they say?
One example from a recent thread in this forum: http://genius.com/Rich-boy-throw-some-ds-lyrics
I'm not up with the latest slang. What was racist in there? There is use of the N word, but my understanding is that it has a different meaning (i.e. not intended as racist) in that context.
(I agree that this is off-topic, and would like to gently remind forummm of what he said to me several pages ago about taking off-topic stuff to another thread)
I just read the lyrics and watched the video, and I saw a lot of glorification of stereotypical black gangster culture, but nothing denigrating other cultures. The video even had a couple of white women riding around in the guy's Caddilac with him, so yay, multiculturalism?
(Fun fact: black gang members (and therefore also gangster rappers) like to refer to Atlanta neighborhoods by their police precinct. The video was recorded in "zone 4 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zone+4)" (which I could tell because it's also the namesake of the record label). I live in "zone 6 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zone%206)," which is only a few miles away and pretty similar architecturally and demographically, except that my neighborhood has a significant white yuppie/hipster minority and zone 4 doesn't. Anyone who might question my understanding of issues of race should keep that in mind.)
-
twell it kinda does matter as racist misoginist voting rappers and their 10s of millions of followers generally vote Democratic. Yet ironically it is the Pubs who are painted as racist misoginist by the race baiting media. I guess if you are voting Democrat based on social issues you just have to over look their huge racist misoginist voting block and forget that one of their primary platform planks is terminating little babies. Not that their is anything wrong with that.
I'm just going to leave all of this right here. A good percentage of U.S. voters actually think this way. If anyone wonders why we in the U.S. never make any progress, I point you to this comment.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
Benghazi is always an easy starting point. From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.
Also, it's hard to trust someone who was so determined to reveal nothing about herself in her early candidacy. In April she announced the beginning of one of the most (if not the most) anticipated campaigns of the cycle, yet she answered only seven press questions in the first several weeks (and what she gave weren't really answers, even by political standards.) She's so adapted to prioritize self-preservation and -advancement above anything else that she forgot she needed to open up a bit and be somewhat amiable when she became a candidate.
-
Rather than all the 'normal' ways to win - we have to get the women vote, the black vote, the old vote, the young vote, the 'other group that doesn't matter' vote - if a candidate would just focus on the middle where most of the people are, they would win.
By "normal way to win" do you really mean to say "only appeal to wealthy Christian white males"? Because that's kind of what you sound like.
As for the bit about "focusing on the middle" to the exclusion of women, minorities, old people, and young people, I suggest you spend some time with latest US demographic data. Those people are the new middle.
I think cripzychiken probably meant pitching a coherent portrait to the entire electorate, so that the election would focus on improving the country, rather than telling each special group how they can get theirs.
-
When you start using sources like libsdebunked you've stopped treating the other side as if they're intelligent human beings who happen to disagree with you. There's an amazing ability of humans to think that they truly understand both sides of an argument and have made an objective identification of the superior argument while people who disagree have simply failed to understand the arguments which seem so simple to them. The idea that the people on the other side might have done the same thing you have seems inconceivable.
From there we just get into echo chambers where nobody really cares what the other side think because you already know they're wrong.
On the contrary, it's sort of convenient in that, if that site is representative of the poster's own opinions, you can know exactly where your points of disagreement are originating.
-
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Well, good for you. Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland? Are you another capitalist pig?
Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.
Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell? Is that where your wife is from?
This appears to have gotten a little personal a few posts back. Can we please take it down a notch?
I was actually waiting for one of them to crack. I thought we had had a /b/ spill, and these two had accidentally run head-first into one another rather than bothering the other posters.
-
Assuming that your assessment of myself is actually correct, why does it have to be because I'm an American? And aren't you from New Mexico?
Nope. I'm actually from the European socialist workers paradise and just happen to be living in New Mexico. I'm one of the fabled master race who have actually lived in an alternative system to the American one, although I am assured that knowing what other countries are like is not required for a conclusion that they are inferior to the United States and in need of some good old fashioned freedom.
Well, good for you. Which socialist workers paradise do you hail from, and why did you leave it for a dry wasteland? Are you another capitalist pig?
Certainly there are advantages to living in the US as a mustachian. The more extreme the divides between rich and poor and the more rampant the consumerism the bigger edge the mustachian master race have. As a white, male, college educated and motivated individual I can't seem to avoid the money pouring in. But no, I came out here for a woman. We plan on going back before having kids but for now I live in the desert.
Where is back, and why did you choose one of the most inhospitable regions of the US to dwell? Is that where your wife is from?
This appears to have gotten a little personal a few posts back. Can we please take it down a notch?
I was just joking.
-
His father was willing to be booed during a debate for his honesty. But Rand is not. He's going to lose as a result unless he changes that. He had a really good chance, but he's blowing it so far.
I find this viewpoint a bit odd. Ron Paul was willing to get booed, yes, but he really wasn't running to win the nomination; but to affect the base. Which he had some success at. Rand is actually running to win it, which means tip-toeing around some subjects to not offend the base before they are ready to hear it.
-
MOD NOTE: I don't know why this topic was locked. I'm looking into it. In the meantime, I will unlock it and just remind everyone to keep posts in-line with the forum rules. Thanks.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.
My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight. We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay. We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.
My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight. We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay. We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.
My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight. We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay. We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.
This one's a bit old, and the guy who actually did it did get convicted, but there's also the Clinton staffer who got caught removing documents from the national archives. Admittedly he could have been independently crooked, but it's not such a stretch to imagine that he was looking to do some clean up for Hillary before a possible 2004 presidential run (or maybe just way ahead of 2008.) You have to have some serious dirt to give up your license to practice law rather than endure some questioning.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.
My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight. We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay. We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
-
This is along the lines of the analysis I was providing earlier, how Fox News went after Trump (and Rand) to knock them out of the race.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly
-
This is along the lines of the analysis I was providing earlier, how Fox News went after Trump (and Rand) to knock them out of the race.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly
According to Trump and Fox CEO they have kissed and made up. I guess Fox likes having the highest viewed news program of all time and Trump likes all the viewers as well.
Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away? Too weird.
One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats. Sounds like a possible branding problem.
-
This is along the lines of the analysis I was providing earlier, how Fox News went after Trump (and Rand) to knock them out of the race.
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/8/9121377/donald-trump-megyn-kelly
According to Trump and Fox CEO they have kissed and made up. I guess Fox likes having the highest viewed news program of all time and Trump likes all the viewers as well.
Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away? Too weird.
One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats. Sounds like a possible branding problem.
Whatever branding problems the Democrats may face are nothing compared to the branding problems that the Republicans are confronting - even before Trump jumped in the race. The difference between the two is that the Democrats' agitators are truly on the fringe and mostly noisy but ineffectual, while the Republicans' agitators constitute a larger part of their base and have managed to exert a sizable choke hold on the nomination process.
-
I can't stand Hillary (I think she's lying, manipulative, corrupt, and as crooked as a $3 bill)
I'll be voting for the GOP candidate.
Non sequitur. They're all liars, manipulators, and corrupt--they're running for president! They're all seeing which billionaires they can suck up to for the mega campaign cash. Huckabee sold crap supplements to poor people with diabetes, intentionally misleading them to make them believe they worked. Trump is always lying about how much money he has or how successful he is, etc. Jeb gets all "outraged" about Trump denigrating a war hero's service when he and his brother were absolutely brutal to McCain in 2000 (the campaign said he had an illegitimate black daughter, was mentally unhinged from being in Vietnam) and to Kerry mocking his purple hearts with those purple heart bandaids that everyone was wearing at the convention. They all lie on a daily basis.
Hillary is a special kind of crooked. I get they all do dishonest things, but I think Hillary is a particularly dispicable human being who views being the first female president as her birthright and will do absolutely anything she can to reach that goal. I would like nothing more than to see her crushed, by anyone.
Oh, come on. She is crooked in practice, no doubt. But how someone who would vote for any of the Republicans currently on the slat would say she is especially corrupt? That's just ridiculous.
From there, go to her massive flaunting of federal law (both security and FOIA) by having her own private email server for her State department. It's not actually so much that she broke federal law as a matter of course; the fact that the issue has fallen so meaninglessly by the wayside. A federal employee can be arrested for leaving a scif with so much as a single classified document, yet she made a whole system that effected that same thing, and nothing happens. That's crooked power.
My coworkers and I were discussing that tonight. We work in a secure environment and think it's crazy there haven't been more repercussions for her to pay. We know the FBI and others are investigating, but if anyone else did this type of thing in the federal government then they'd be completely screwed... quickly.
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
I am really tired of hearing about that one. Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it. They did not and instead focused on civil litigation. That tells me they had a weak case at best.
Largely irrelevant to the matter of Hillary Clinton intentionally breaking laws with her email server and subsequent destruction of documents/evidence. We are talking about one of the many filthy, egg-sucking weasels seeking to be in charge of the public hen house, not private individuals and corporations pursuing profits.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society.
I believe those 'Republicans' have been branded as RINOS, but they might as well be called unicorns. ;)
Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win. However, I would love to see a Bernie/Trump debate, Brooklyn v. Queens, oh yeah!
Indeed.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win. However, I would love to see a Bernie/Trump debate, Brooklyn v. Queens, oh yeah!
I'm pretty sure your ideal candidate would probably be a libertarian, then. The closest I can come up with to the combination you've put forth is Gary Johnson:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/08/gary-johnson-preparing-to-run-for-president-in-2016/
If he's running again, I'll probably be voting for him myself.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
-
Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win.
Why do you think he won't win? I think he will bring the young people out to vote, and they will cast their vote for him.
-
Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away? Too weird.
One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats. Sounds like a possible branding problem.
Those people were part of an organisation claiming to be part of the #BLM movement. They're known as "Outside Agitators 206" and are not on the list of endorsing organizations on the Black Lives Matter website. One of the women on the stage is a Palin supporter and "Radical Christian Mullatanist" (I am unfamiliar with the definition). She had this to say on her FB after the event.
Please note…
I am only as respectable as the cross.
I am only as apologetic as he cross.
I am only as concerned with worldy powers as the cross.
I am only as concerned about upward mobility as the cross.
I am only as neutral, as polite, and as comforting as the cross.
I am only as rational as the cross.
This is my offering. The Spirit convicts, directs, and affirms me.
But this shit is scandalous. That is the call of discipleship.
I live like the resurrection is coming and Christ is sovereign. It is utter foolishness. It is life.
I do not worship Caesar. I cannot partake in Babylon. I cannot serve two master.
Believe, I have made my choice.
I don't think her motivation is to hold "progressives accountable" but to discredit his campaign in the eyes of minorities. The fact that they haven't stormed the stage of Hillary or any of the Republican candidates is telling, especially when you compare the their voting records. It doesn't make sense to go after someone who marched with MLK and has such a consistent voting record on Civil Rights. I think for her, specifically, it is about faith, and since he is Jewish, she is targeting him. Full disclosure: I am also Jewish, so I may be biased.
That being said, I think Sanders made a sound move. It would be contrary to have them arrested (which he could have done) and would have been dismissive and disrespectful to the actual BLM movement. He also released a sweeping racial justice policy.
I think it was unfortunate, but not permanently damaging to his campaign. He had 28,000 people turn out in Portland the next day, so it hasn't hurt his rep, at least among progressives who know where he stands. It seems that members of the black community agree, as my twitter exploded with responses from people criticizing the protesters for "working against the only candidate who is actually helping." Him "slinking" off stage was diplomatic and respectful, but obviously comes off as weak to conservatives.
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
-
From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
I think you'll find a closer chance to finding that Democrat unicorn than a Republican as Basenji described. The union thing may be hard, considering they have been a mainstay of the Democrats support for decades, but everything else is imaginable. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party is not anti-business by definition and many Democrats, like Clinton, get quite a bit of support by the business community.
-
From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".
This is probably true, but I'm predicting that once the first few primaries are over, the narrative will change. Clinton is pretty much a known quantity, and unless she changes her tune to become more exciting to primary voters, I see her support falling over time. Whether that is enough to unseat her as the favorite depends also on what other people do: someone like Martin O'Malley, who is polling in the margin of error range, could have a great debate and get his name out there as a legitimate candidate. Or Biden could enter the race, which could take some support away from Clinton.
Clinton is absolutely the favorite, but that doesn't mean her chances to actually get the nomination are that high - it just means that no one else's is higher.
-
From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".
The mainstream media is saying that because Clinton has tons more money and party support than Sanders. And that's just to get the Democratic Party nomination. If he did manage to get it, then its pretty hard to imagine a self-identified socialist winning the general election. Not impossible, but quite improbable.
-
Did anyone catch the article about the Black Lives matters people taking over the podium from Sanders and then him slinking away? Too weird.
One article inferred that the black racist faction of the Democratic party was turning off the Hispanic and Asian Democrats. Sounds like a possible branding problem.
Those people were part of an organisation claiming to be part of the #BLM movement. They're known as "Outside Agitators 206" and are not on the list of endorsing organizations on the Black Lives Matter website. One of the women on the stage is a Palin supporter and "Radical Christian Mullatanist" (I am unfamiliar with the definition). She had this to say on her FB after the event.
Please note…
I am only as respectable as the cross.
I am only as apologetic as he cross.
I am only as concerned with worldy powers as the cross.
I am only as concerned about upward mobility as the cross.
I am only as neutral, as polite, and as comforting as the cross.
I am only as rational as the cross.
This is my offering. The Spirit convicts, directs, and affirms me.
But this shit is scandalous. That is the call of discipleship.
I live like the resurrection is coming and Christ is sovereign. It is utter foolishness. It is life.
I do not worship Caesar. I cannot partake in Babylon. I cannot serve two master.
Believe, I have made my choice.
I don't think her motivation is to hold "progressives accountable" but to discredit his campaign in the eyes of minorities. The fact that they haven't stormed the stage of Hillary or any of the Republican candidates is telling, especially when you compare the their voting records. It doesn't make sense to go after someone who marched with MLK and has such a consistent voting record on Civil Rights. I think for her, specifically, it is about faith, and since he is Jewish, she is targeting him. Full disclosure: I am also Jewish, so I may be biased.
That being said, I think Sanders made a sound move. It would be contrary to have them arrested (which he could have done) and would have been dismissive and disrespectful to the actual BLM movement. He also released a sweeping racial justice policy.
I think it was unfortunate, but not permanently damaging to his campaign. He had 28,000 people turn out in Portland the next day, so it hasn't hurt his rep, at least among progressives who know where he stands. It seems that members of the black community agree, as my twitter exploded with responses from people criticizing the protesters for "working against the only candidate who is actually helping." Him "slinking" off stage was diplomatic and respectful, but obviously comes off as weak to conservatives.
Thanks for that! I mainly follow these political dramas as a matter of entertainment. My vote doesn't count in Missouri as we are sure to send the electoral college to vote Republican. So it matters not how I vote. Oh and yes, It comes off as extremely week to more people than just conservatives. It was his rally and he didn't even speak.
-
From what I see, it is only the mainstream media, controlled by 6 major corporations, that are telling us bernie is not electable. Then this is repeated over and over by people that "would vote for him, but he won't win".
The mainstream media is saying that because Clinton has tons more money and party support than Sanders. And that's just to get the Democratic Party nomination. If he did manage to get it, then its pretty hard to imagine a self-identified socialist winning the general election. Not impossible, but quite improbable.
Depends who he's running against. He'd be a big underdog against a moderate Republican like Bush or Kasich. But against Trump, Cruz, or Huckabee? Sanders would win easily.
Part of me wants to see a Sanders/Trump election so that the Tea Party Republicans who think that they keep losing elections (especially for President) because they're not selecting a conservative enough candidate will finally learn that general elections are generally won by the candidate closer to the middle.
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
I think you'll find a closer chance to finding that Democrat unicorn than a Republican as Basenji described. The union thing may be hard, considering they have been a mainstay of the Democrats support for decades, but everything else is imaginable. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party is not anti-business by definition and many Democrats, like Clinton, get quite a bit of support by the business community.
Doubtful. Having been in the belly of the beast during Democrats running everything, I can tell you that the only reason they get big sums from business is essentially as protection money. Their base would really rather they demonize and lash businesses at every opportunity.
Doesn't matter anyway. All we are likely to get elected are power-hungry nutballs beholden to their donors. As a result, I have for years voted for whoever would be most likely to ensure absolute gridlock due to infighting. That way they can hopefully do the least amount of damage possible.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Don't love Hillary, but Bernie isn't going to win. However, I would love to see a Bernie/Trump debate, Brooklyn v. Queens, oh yeah!
Love your search for perfection! I'm pretty sure if the Republican's could do that they would win every election from here on out and control both the Senate and the House. Oh wait, damn, they already have the majorities in those two chambers. Well I guess we are screwed then.
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
As a conservative, I would vote for that Democrat, especially considering our current slate of options. Most likely if someone like this were to make it through the gauntlet, I would think they'd be doing so as a centrist independent and probably with considerable personal financial backing.
-
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
-
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
I've said it before, but Sanders is carrying on his work. Teddy ran on the progressive platform which calls for many thinks Sanders is advocating. I attached the platform for the 1912 progressive party below.
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere the platform called for
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included
Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:
The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?
-
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
I am really tired of hearing about that one. Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it. They did not and instead focused on civil litigation. That tells me they had a weak case at best.
It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.
-
This is a really good explanation of what those BLM protesters were up to with Bernie Sanders. What's more, it appears to be working.
http://flavorwire.com/532095/the-real-lesson-of-bernie-sanders-and-black-lives-matter
-
So I got curious and checked Sanders site. I must say that I like his general ideas.
Here is one quote from his site.
"In fact, inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s. Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. One family, Walmart’s Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Nearly all of the new income growth since the recession has gone to the top 1 percent"
Of course what he fails to mention here is that the US Gov controls 100 times the wealth of Walmart. I assume that his plan includes the government increasing taxes on slobs like us in order to equalize income? So in that case he would like government to control 200 times the wealth of Walmart.
To give you an idea how bad the Government is at creating jobs just look at Ferguson --- It was reported on NPR this morning that $500,000,000 has been spent on Ferguson in the last year and created 1,000 jobs. I'll do the math for you ---- that is $500,000 per job! So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs. I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year. Any idea where that might come from?
Granted the Walton's are rich. So if they gave every bit of their stock to a trust that then paid Walmart workers out in the dividends. Each Walmart worker would have an additional $250 per year in income.
The theory is that redistributing wealth creates large income for the underclass. The math just doesn't work that way.
There is no free lunch --- Witness the 17 Trillion dollar debt.
So how do you address the massive income inequality? Close the trade borders? Yep, that addresses income, but not the resulting unemployment or increase in the cost of goods and supplies? Mandate a higher minimum wage? Again, fewer people employed and higher costs for burgers and fries.
There is a balance between free market unfettered capitalism and top down socialist control. I hope that we can find that balance soon.
Because BS is right about one thing. It has been a long, slow continuous slide down hill for us.
-
This is a really good explanation of what those BLM protesters were up to with Bernie Sanders. What's more, it appears to be working.
http://flavorwire.com/532095/the-real-lesson-of-bernie-sanders-and-black-lives-matter
Interesting article. Thanks.
-
So I got curious and checked Sanders site. I must say that I like his general ideas.
…
So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs. I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year. Any idea where that might come from?
The critiques about what Sanders would do to reduce income inequality is a good one. The typical solutions suggested to that are 1) increase minimum wages; and 2) increase the highest income tax rates, and so it's reasonable to think that Sanders would propose both of those, particularly in the absence of other concrete plans.
The quote on the 13 million new jobs, though, is wildly out of line. I'll quote the section of the web site that comes from:
Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
-
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
I am really tired of hearing about that one. Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it. They did not and instead focused on civil litigation. That tells me they had a weak case at best.
It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.
Possible since we are in a kleptocracy. I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts. And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
I think it's pretty likely that we could even find both of these sets of qualities in the same candidate! The only trouble is that unless he joined one of the two major parties he'd have no chance at winning the general election, and if he did join either of them he'd have no chance of winning the primary.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
-
I think it's pretty likely that we could even find both of these sets of qualities in the same candidate! The only trouble is that unless he joined one of the two major parties he'd have no chance at winning the general election, and if he did join either of them he'd have no chance of winning the primary.
+1
Extremists on both sides can clearly see problems with the other, but don't see (or worse, see but ignore) their own problems.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
-
So I got curious and checked Sanders site. I must say that I like his general ideas.
Here is one quote from his site.
"In fact, inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s. Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. One family, Walmart’s Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Nearly all of the new income growth since the recession has gone to the top 1 percent"
Of course what he fails to mention here is that the US Gov controls 100 times the wealth of Walmart. I assume that his plan includes the government increasing taxes on slobs like us in order to equalize income? So in that case he would like government to control 200 times the wealth of Walmart.
This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics. "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population." The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country. That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities. Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage. My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.
I agree with most of the rest of your post.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
That claim would require some support even if it were the only issue, but the infrastructure we're talking about is much, much broader than roads. The air, rail, sea, pipeline, and power infrastructures all need considerable investment to remain competitive, and these issues have nothing to due with "misappropriation of highway tax funds."
-
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
I am really tired of hearing about that one. Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it. They did not and instead focused on civil litigation. That tells me they had a weak case at best.
It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.
Possible since we are in a kleptocracy. I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts. And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.
Who said they were "treated lightly"? But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?
No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.
-
But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.
So did a lot of politically connected people, and those banksters would be sure to roll all over their 'benefactors' if they ended up inside a criminal court. That is why this will never happen.
-
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
I am really tired of hearing about that one. Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it. They did not and instead focused on civil litigation. That tells me they had a weak case at best.
It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.
Possible since we are in a kleptocracy. I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts. And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.
Who said they were "treated lightly"? But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?
No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.
Civil litigation settlements have been in the tens of billions for the large banks.
I will let you use your imagination on which groups are radical left.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
-
As a bank examiner for a Federal agency here were any number of things that I had to be careful to not do under pain of civil and criminal penalties (up to and including a trip to a Federal Pound-Me-In-The-Ass Penitentiary). I still cannot believe that the outright criminality of what she has done as Secretary of State has not resulted in charges.
You should have just gone to the other side of the fence. If you break a bunch of laws to fill your pockets with taxpayer money as a rich banker, the president "looks forward not backward" and there aren't even any investigations.
I am really tired of hearing about that one. Of the gubmint had a good criminal case against anyone in the banking or shadow banking industry, they would have pursued it. They did not and instead focused on civil litigation. That tells me they had a weak case at best.
It tells me the bankers have deep campaign-contributing wallets. What about Holder saying the big banks were too big to jail? And they purposefully decided not to prosecute all kinds of crimes, including fraud and money laundering. Instead they just fined them relative pittances compared to their profits.
Possible since we are in a kleptocracy. I would call the civil settlements non trivial dollar amounts. And if you knew how bank's are now regulated and the attendant costs you would not think they are being treated lightly.
Who said they were "treated lightly"? But regulation or tens of millions of dollars in fines is a very different deal than criminal prosecution for blatant criminal behavior--especially when banks make billions.
The problem is finding real, true, criminal acts. Most specifically criminal acts were committed by very low level people (forging documents on income, etc to get loans and the like). Most of the real high-impact stuff was possibly deceptive or immoral, but not necessarily illegal. If I sell you a cardboard box by telling you it's full of gold (prime CDOs, etc) and feel free to verify it yourself, and you fail to do your due diligence and just buy it in a hurry because you think it's going up up up, according to our current laws that's on you. Quite frankly, most of it was people using such complex algorithms that they didn't understand that it was more ignorance than anything else.
-
This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics. "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population." The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country. That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities. Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage. My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.
Two thoughts on this:
First - I'm not convinced that "wealth" in the equality/inequality debates is defined simply as "home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities". Certainly other assets have to factor in, like buildings, land, privately-held companies, etc. I'd imagine even art, jewelery and cars must count too. Note that these assets tend to overwhelming favor the upper quintile of our population.
Second - I don't quite understand why you think this is misleading. Certainly there are millions of Americans who have a net worth of ≤ $0, even when you total up all the money they could get for their cars, phones, art, jewelery etc. A typical couple in their early 30s might have two car loans, credit card debt, student loan debt and possibly a HELOC on the negative side of the ledger. On the plus side they've got a bunch of stuff that's rapidly depreciated since they purchased it (cars, cell phones, clothes, televisions, etc). If they held an estate sale and sold all they had, they might garner $10-30k... possibly not even enough to counter all their debt. Why? Because virtually everything typical Americans buy depreciates rapidly and is often bought on credit.
OTOH, the wealthy can buy art, property, businesses and other things that either generate money or at least don't depreciate as fast. Of course they can also blow it on depreciating assets (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8144/7630238652_58f7bf6102_b.jpg) too.
So again... why do you think these statistics are misleading? A large swath of Americans would honestly have <$10k if they sold everything they owned and payed off their debts. My personal reaction to such statistics if that doesn't put any responsibility on middle class individuals who have a net worth ~$0. They could have funded their 401(k) and IRAs every year, but instead they have the newest smartphone, drive fancy cars (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bEYesuJLCnk/UjH0RMhxq3I/AAAAAAAOKJs/tIhLTFDwX7A/s1600/2015-GMC-Yukon-Denali-15.jpg)bought on credit and own way more house (https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/housing11.jpg) than they need to.
-
This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics. "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population." The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country. That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities. Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage. My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.
Two thoughts on this:
First - I'm not convinced that "wealth" in the equality/inequality debates is defined simply as "home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities". Certainly other assets have to factor in, like buildings, land, privately-held companies, etc. I'd imagine even art, jewelery and cars must count too. Note that these assets tend to overwhelming favor the upper quintile of our population.
Second - I don't quite understand why you think this is misleading. Certainly there are millions of Americans who have a net worth of ≤ $0, even when you total up all the money they could get for their cars, phones, art, jewelery etc. A typical couple in their early 30s might have two car loans, credit card debt, student loan debt and possibly a HELOC on the negative side of the ledger. On the plus side they've got a bunch of stuff that's rapidly depreciated since they purchased it (cars, cell phones, clothes, televisions, etc). If they held an estate sale and sold all they had, they might garner $10-30k... possibly not even enough to counter all their debt. Why? Because virtually everything typical Americans buy depreciates rapidly and is often bought on credit.
OTOH, the wealthy can buy art, property, businesses and other things that either generate money or at least don't depreciate as fast. Of course they can also blow it on depreciating assets (https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8144/7630238652_58f7bf6102_b.jpg) too.
So again... why do you think these statistics are misleading? A large swath of Americans would honestly have <$10k if they sold everything they owned and payed off their debts. My personal reaction to such statistics if that doesn't put any responsibility on middle class individuals who have a net worth ~$0. They could have funded their 401(k) and IRAs every year, but instead they have the newest smartphone, drive fancy cars (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bEYesuJLCnk/UjH0RMhxq3I/AAAAAAAOKJs/tIhLTFDwX7A/s1600/2015-GMC-Yukon-Denali-15.jpg)bought on credit and own way more house (https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/housing11.jpg) than they need to.
I think the stats are somewhat misleading because of how much it hinges on things like student loans and mortgages. I don't think it's a "problem" that my net worth is lower due to my having just bought a house versus being 15 years into a mortgage; all else being equal there isn't a lot different there, just elapsed time. It might signify an issue for me personally, but as far as something to make policy on to "fix"...how? If I've made investments such as a college education and a mortgage, I don't expect some white knight to come along and "fix" my "financial situation" because I don't "hold" enough "wealth" purely due to not having had time to pay a few things back yet.
-
So again... why do you think these statistics are misleading? A large swath of Americans would honestly have <$10k if they sold everything they owned and payed off their debts.
It's misleading because those with a negative net worth actually tilt the balance towards the top quintile mathmaticly, although it's not actually wealth they possess.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What special treatment do you think unions get in the Democratic Party?
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?
No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.
I will let you use your imagination on which groups are radical left.
This is classic. "All Democratic candidates are in thrall to radical leftist groups!!" "Like who?" "I'm not telling."
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
-
I think the stats are somewhat misleading because of how much it hinges on things like student loans and mortgages. I don't think it's a "problem" that my net worth is lower due to my having just bought a house versus being 15 years into a mortgage; all else being equal there isn't a lot different there, just elapsed time. It might signify an issue for me personally, but as far as something to make policy on to "fix"...how? If I've made investments such as a college education and a mortgage, I don't expect some white knight to come along and "fix" my "financial situation" because I don't "hold" enough "wealth" purely due to not having had time to pay a few things back yet.
Ok - well regarding mortgages they shouldn't change your net worth substantially - basically only the equity 'counts'. And for student loans, well I do think that's important. If you have $80k in student loans that's going to have a big effect on you for years to come. I'm not saying it's not the borrower's responsibility for taking out those loans int he first place, but it's all part of the equation showing how big a gap there is.
It's misleading because those with a negative net worth actually tilt the balance towards the top quintile mathmaticly, although it's not actually wealth they possess.
Of course it tilts the balance towards the top quintile. I think that's the entire value of the such metrics - it shows what percentage of your population are essentially one catastrophy from financial ruin. If it's 20, 30, 40% I think that's a problem. What we do about it depends on why the imbalance exists - are poor people making really stupid decisions (https://www.google.ca/search?q=payday+loans&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAkQ_AUoA2oVChMI5Yf-xvahxwIVym0-Ch2ldABB&biw=1400&bih=760#tbm=isch&q=payday+loans+header&imgrc=ZQPjyKDyxgzhNM%3A)? Are things truly harder for someone earning just below the median income?
Personally I think at least part of the blame rests on our really dumb purchasing decisions. Statistics don't tell us the why - just the what. It's up to us to figure out what they mean.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
Fair enough. I didn't know Kasich's views on abortion before this.
Also, I don't think I fully parsed the bolded part Basenji's statement before. Does that mean absolutely no restrictions on abortion?
In terms of moderate vs extreme position, I would note that Kasich is clearly in the moderate position - which, depending on the poll, is either "abortion should be legal under most circumstances" or, more commonly, "abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances."
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
Fair enough. I didn't know Kasich's views on abortion before this.
Also, I don't think I fully parsed the bolded part Basenji's statement before. Does that mean absolutely no restrictions on abortion?
In terms of moderate vs extreme position, I would note that Kasich is clearly in the moderate position - which, depending on the poll, is either "abortion should be legal under most circumstances" or, more commonly, "abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances."
Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother. If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks) and he helped closed clinics so there was no access which in effect for some meant legality did not matter, no abortion in any case. That is not moderate.
I am not moderate, I think we should go with the Canadian model, but I do know moderate is for this, and he is no where near moderate.
-
Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother. If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks)
I don't understand how what Kasich has done has limited the rights to an abortion in the first trimester. Can you clarify?
-
and he helped closed clinics so there was no access which in effect for some meant legality did not matter, no abortion in any case. That is not moderate.
Reading up on this, I completely agree that the laws Kasich has approved have dramatically reduced access, in quite probably an unconstitutional way. It's quite possible that this situation is even worse than described by your NARAL quote earlier, which is surprising to me.
-
So I got curious and checked Sanders site. I must say that I like his general ideas.
Here is one quote from his site.
"In fact, inequality is worse now than at any other time in American history since the 1920s. Today the top one-tenth of 1 percent of our nation owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined. One family, Walmart’s Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. Nearly all of the new income growth since the recession has gone to the top 1 percent"
Of course what he fails to mention here is that the US Gov controls 100 times the wealth of Walmart. I assume that his plan includes the government increasing taxes on slobs like us in order to equalize income? So in that case he would like government to control 200 times the wealth of Walmart.
This is one of my favorite horribly misleading statistics. "Rich person or group owns more than the wealth of Y% of the population." The reality is that anybody on the forum with a positive net worth has more wealth than the bottom ~1/3 of the country. That is because of the very narrow definition of wealth and the fact that the bottom 1/3 of the households in the country have a negative net worth. Wealth is defined as home equity plus liquid assets minus all liabilities. Thus almost all college students and most recent college grads have a negative net worth, as do many long time renters with a big amount of credit card debt., recent first time homeowners, as well folks who are still upside down with their mortgage. My guess is the basis for Bernie quote is from a study circa 2010 when home values were still in the tank. It's not mustachian but plenty of American have considerable wealth tied up in cars, furniture, TVs, smart phones, clothes, jewelry, art, guns, baseball cards, and Barbie doll collections. When you start counting the purchase value of those objects or even the amount you could sell them on craigslist/ebay, the Walton family would be able to buy no where near 42% of the rest of the country.
I agree with most of the rest of your post.
Wow! That is an amazing statistic! Just shows how these wealth numbers are manipulated. So in fact, I personally, Bob W. have more wealth than 33% of the rest of the people in the country combined. Amazing. I also have more wealth than 80% of Doctors who have graduated in the last 5 years.
According to Hillary I have an enormous amount or more wealth that when she and Bill left office.
-
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
I've said it before, but Sanders is carrying on his work. Teddy ran on the progressive platform which calls for many thinks Sanders is advocating. I attached the platform for the 1912 progressive party below.
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere the platform called for
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included
Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:
The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)
And he was a Republican, no less. I wonder if he would still fit that affiliation if alive today?
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.
No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.
The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/StarNetwork.svg/330px-StarNetwork.svg.png)
But as the city and suburbs get bigger and traffic gets worse, jobs move out to the suburbs too -- and that's a disaster: instead of having everybody commute to A, you have people commuting from B to C or from C to D or any permutation of locations, and to get them there in any reasonable time at all means you have to build lots more roads in a topology that looks more like a mesh.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.png/330px-NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.png)
Because of this principle, there will be a point where we simply can't afford to expand the number of suburbs and will have to accommodate increasing population (assuming population continues to increase, which is not as certain as it used to be) by increasing density of the existing urban areas and switching to more efficient (i.e., cheaper per person, assuming full utilization) things like rail transit.
Not to mention, all of this stuff has to be maintained, and as the size of the road network increases, so does the ratio of "existing" roads to "new" roads. It's no surprise that at some point maintenance of the existing network approaches 100% of the budget (or exceeds it, if you've planned poorly by deferring maintenance before); it's mathematically inevitable unless the budget is growing at a faster rate, and it's not. (Because it can't.)
-
So I got curious and checked Sanders site. I must say that I like his general ideas.
…
So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs. I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year. Any idea where that might come from?
The critiques about what Sanders would do to reduce income inequality is a good one. The typical solutions suggested to that are 1) increase minimum wages; and 2) increase the highest income tax rates, and so it's reasonable to think that Sanders would propose both of those, particularly in the absence of other concrete plans.
The quote on the 13 million new jobs, though, is wildly out of line. I'll quote the section of the web site that comes from:
Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
Then he is either really bad at math or straight out lying. 1 Trillion over 5 years is just 200 billion per year. Which is barely enough to support 2-3 million jobs per year. So he is off by a factor of at least 3. (still better at math than most politicians)
I actually agree on the infrastructure need. It is pretty simple really. Bring all the mercenaries troops home and put that money to work employing them on construction projects. They can start on those as soon as the war defense department figures out to defend our home borders.
Really if this country wasn't so poorly run and run by special interests it would be a paradise. Too bad our leadership politically beholden representatives have run us into the ground.
-
I think the stats are somewhat misleading because of how much it hinges on things like student loans and mortgages. I don't think it's a "problem" that my net worth is lower due to my having just bought a house versus being 15 years into a mortgage; all else being equal there isn't a lot different there, just elapsed time. It might signify an issue for me personally, but as far as something to make policy on to "fix"...how? If I've made investments such as a college education and a mortgage, I don't expect some white knight to come along and "fix" my "financial situation" because I don't "hold" enough "wealth" purely due to not having had time to pay a few things back yet.
Ok - well regarding mortgages they shouldn't change your net worth substantially - basically only the equity 'counts'.
Yeah, I get that, and my point is that if you have someone who is 1 year into a mortgage with 21% equity in a home (DP + minimal payments), versus someone identical in every other respect except they're 15 years into a mortgage with, I dunno, 70% equity, they're going to have vastly different net worths. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything needs to be done to fix the "problem". One dude just hasn't had time to pay it down yet, and is statistically probably younger. I think in order to discuss the overall level of wealth statistic, it probably makes sense to index it to age, or exclude everyone under 35, or something. Saying we have a problem because lots of people just starting out in life have a zero or negative net worth isn't productive. It's when you're 50 and your worth is negative you have a problem.
And for student loans, well I do think that's important. If you have $80k in student loans that's going to have a big effect on you for years to come. I'm not saying it's not the borrower's responsibility for taking out those loans int he first place, but it's all part of the equation showing how big a gap there is.
But again, it's not all created equal. I'd rather have $80k of student loans on an accounting or engineering degree than $50k with an English or Literature degree.
These statistics are likely accurate, but based on the reasons above, I'd be wary of making any policy changes that "fix" a wealth disparity that's really more of an "age" disparity or "stage of life" disparity.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.
No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.
The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/StarNetwork.svg/330px-StarNetwork.svg.png)
But as the city and suburbs get bigger and traffic gets worse, jobs move out to the suburbs too -- and that's a disaster: instead of having everybody commute to A, you have people commuting from B to C or from C to D or any permutation of locations, and to get them there in any reasonable time at all means you have to build lots more roads in a topology that looks more like a mesh.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.png/330px-NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.png)
Because of this principle, there will be a point where we simply can't afford to expand the number of suburbs and will have to accommodate increasing population (assuming population continues to increase, which is not as certain as it used to be) by increasing density of the existing urban areas and switching to more efficient (i.e., cheaper per person, assuming full utilization) things like rail transit.
Not to mention, all of this stuff has to be maintained, and as the size of the road network increases, so does the ratio of "existing" roads to "new" roads. It's no surprise that at some point maintenance of the existing network approaches 100% of the budget (or exceeds it, if you've planned poorly by deferring maintenance before); it's mathematically inevitable unless the budget is growing at a faster rate, and it's not. (Because it can't.)
I don't have the skills to do a diagram but where were you on the self driving Uber car thread. It seems like membership ownership of cars and shared ride services would cut that traffic pattern by 65%? Too bad we don't have someone leading that charge. That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet? Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business? That is so 2005.
Perhaps we should draft Elon Musk for President?
-
That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet? Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business? That is so 2005.
This is something that maddens me. Much of the last 5 to 10 years of my career involved work that I absolutely did not need to be physically present in an office to accomplish. As a matter of fact, I would have been noticeably more productive telecommuting. Guess how many days were allowed as remote work during my last several full time, permanent jobs? Zero. I think this has a lot to do with office culture and management's silly attempts to assert control. Good luck changing it.
-
Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother. If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks)
I don't understand how what Kasich has done has limited the rights to an abortion in the first trimester. Can you clarify?
He signed a bill moving the right to an abortion from 25 weeks to 20. Which harms not those who do not want an child and use it as birth control, but those who want a child and the twenty week scans shows deformities. Now, no time to get to a clinic. Add that with the closing of the clinics and you have a even bigger problem.
-
So I got curious and checked Sanders site. I must say that I like his general ideas.
…
So Bernie wants the Government to create 13 million new jobs. I'm guessing the price tag on that will be around 4 trillion per year. Any idea where that might come from?
The critiques about what Sanders would do to reduce income inequality is a good one. The typical solutions suggested to that are 1) increase minimum wages; and 2) increase the highest income tax rates, and so it's reasonable to think that Sanders would propose both of those, particularly in the absence of other concrete plans.
The quote on the 13 million new jobs, though, is wildly out of line. I'll quote the section of the web site that comes from:
Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
Then he is either really bad at math or straight out lying. 1 Trillion over 5 years is just 200 billion per year. Which is barely enough to support 2-3 million jobs per year. So he is off by a factor of at least 3. (still better at math than most politicians)
I actually agree on the infrastructure need. It is pretty simple really. Bring all the mercenaries troops home and put that money to work employing them on construction projects. They can start on those as soon as the war defense department figures out to defend our home borders.
Really if this country wasn't so poorly run and run by special interests it would be a paradise. Too bad our leadership politically beholden representatives have run us into the ground.
He's not saying that the process of expanding/updating infrastructure will employ that many people - you don't need 13 million employees to help expand the infrastructure. He's saying that having that better infrastructure will result in 13 million new jobs.
* I'm not saying that he's right, I'm just making sure that you understand what he's saying.
-
Moderate for abortion is first trimester, under cases of rape/incest and when it would harm the mother. If you do what Kasich did, you have stopped letting women abort in cases of damage to the fetus (determined at 20 weeks)
I don't understand how what Kasich has done has limited the rights to an abortion in the first trimester. Can you clarify?
He signed a bill moving the right to an abortion from 25 weeks to 20. Which harms not those who do not want an child and use it as birth control, but those who want a child and the twenty week scans shows deformities. Now, no time to get to a clinic. Add that with the closing of the clinics and you have a even bigger problem.
Oh, I see what you're saying. I didn't get what you meant by "in cases of damage to the fetus" in your first post. Thanks for clarifying.
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What special treatment do you think unions get in the Democratic Party?
Oh, a crapload! I'm a member of two unions at the same time, and without a doubt, unions get 'special interest' access to Democrats. This is self evident.
-
I don't have the skills to do a diagram but where were you on the self driving Uber car thread. It seems like membership ownership of cars and shared ride services would cut that traffic pattern by 65%? Too bad we don't have someone leading that charge. That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet? Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business? That is so 2005.
Perhaps we should draft Elon Musk for President?
Uber and even self-driving cars are only a small improvement over plain old taxi service. In fact, such things would tend to cause an overall increase in traffic: when a person uses his own car, the car takes the same number of trips as the person. When the person uses uber, the car takes all those same trips plus the driving between paid fares.
A shared ride service can reduce that, but then the proper comparison is between it and a bus.
-
Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
I've said it before, but Sanders is carrying on his work. Teddy ran on the progressive platform which calls for many thinks Sanders is advocating. I attached the platform for the 1912 progressive party below.
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
In the social sphere the platform called for
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited injunctions in strikes
A minimum wage law for women
An eight hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included
Women's suffrage
Direct election of Senators
Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:
The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term)
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)
And he was a Republican, no less. I wonder if he would still fit that affiliation if alive today?
Not likely. Teddy was a true progressive of his day, meaning he was in favor of the Fabian style of fascism. We don't call it that anymore though, today we just call it "progressive".
-
I don't have the skills to do a diagram but where were you on the self driving Uber car thread. It seems like membership ownership of cars and shared ride services would cut that traffic pattern by 65%? Too bad we don't have someone leading that charge. That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet? Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business? That is so 2005.
Perhaps we should draft Elon Musk for President?
Uber and even self-driving cars are only a small improvement over plain old taxi service. In fact, such things would tend to cause an overall increase in traffic: when a person uses his own car, the car takes the same number of trips as the person. When the person uses uber, the car takes all those same trips plus the driving between paid fares.
Well, yes and no. Because both Uber/Lyft and any self-driving cars all use real-time routing algorithums to make certain the total fleet is as efficient as possible, which in this context means the highest fare miles to non-fare miles ratio. This would have the obvious effect of reducing redunant traffic miles. Also, these kinds of systems don't impose much of anything upon urban parking.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.
Yes, I'm saying this. It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.
No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.
The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.
Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves. Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel. The problem that you cite is already self-correcting. A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.
-
Yes, a transportation "mesh" or spider web is the best, and many cities do just that with public transpo, even sprawled ones.
(http://mic-ro.com/metro/schemap400/budapest2009.gif)
-
Enough of the Clintons, Enough of the Bush's and thank God no more Obamas. I will cheer for Trump if nothing more to expose both sides and get the status quo scare enough to get some real change and perhaps start a real third party.....subject to change as this is all really premature.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What special treatment do you think unions get in the Democratic Party?
Oh, a crapload! I'm a member of two unions at the same time, and without a doubt, unions get 'special interest' access to Democrats. This is self evident.
This is true. Unions have been disproportionately supporting Democrats for a long time. That disproportionate support has increased to near universal support as the Republicans have been trying to get rid of or kneecap or otherwise disable unions for decades. So naturally they favor Democrats. And naturally Republicans try to defang unions even more. For various reasons, including decline in manufacturing jobs and successful Republican opposition to unionization, enrollment in unions has declined by something like 70% I think.
-
and he helped closed clinics so there was no access which in effect for some meant legality did not matter, no abortion in any case. That is not moderate.
Reading up on this, I completely agree that the laws Kasich has approved have dramatically reduced access, in quite probably an unconstitutional way. It's quite possible that this situation is even worse than described by your NARAL quote earlier, which is surprising to me.
I recall Kasich not being a moderate in the House. But he's been doing a good job of rebranding himself since he left Lehman Brothers and went back into politics.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
Given that the elected governor of Ohio passed legislation they are screaming about, I would guess the abortionists are viewed as extremists by his constituents, no?
In any case, your extremist is my moderate and vice versa.
-
How about a democrat that does not pander to every far-out leftist interest group, thinks unions have a place but don't deserve special treatment, understands enough about economics to grasp the idea that higher tax rates diminish incentive to be productive, would be willing to cut a deal on tax rates for US companies to repatriate overseas profits, values social security and other safety net programs to make sure they are sustainable, and believes that the business of America is business?
Another unicorn, I expect, and someone who would never, ever get past the swirl of extremist politics and dirty money that is the primary process.
What are examples of what you would categorize as "far-out leftist interest group"?
No examples? It sounded like you were saying all D's supported all of them. I'm curious what this looks like to you.
I will let you use your imagination on which groups are radical left.
This is classic. "All Democratic candidates are in thrall to radical leftist groups!!" "Like who?" "I'm not telling."
Yeah, I thought it was weird that there wasn't even one example provided. But there are also a lot of Democrats (like Obama) who want to increase the strength of SS and other safety net programs (they may just have a different solution than regulator prefers) and also Democrats who signed on to the corporate tax repatriation holiday that Bush signed (but it turned out that the companies just passed the cash to executives and shareholders and didn't actually do reinvestment or increase jobs like they promised--and in fact some like Campbells had huge layoffs, so I can understand why some would be hesitant to provide another huge windfall for industry when there were none of the promised results from the last round). And Obama cut taxes dramatically for the lower income and middle class, while letting just the top bracket revert to the Clinton levels.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
Given that the elected governor of Ohio passed legislation they are screaming about, I would guess the abortionists are viewed as extremists by his constituents, no?
That's not logically consistent. Government leaders frequently do things that the majority of their constituents oppose. And something that about half the people support isn't "extreme".
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
Given that the elected governor of Ohio passed legislation they are screaming about, I would guess the abortionists are viewed as extremists by his constituents, no?
That's not logically consistent. Government leaders frequently do things that the majority of their constituents oppose. And something that about half the people support isn't "extreme".
Difference of opinion makes a market. Neither of us is buying what the other person is selling, it would seem.
As for the pin-the-tail-on-the-extremist-left-group game, I am not playing. I know damn well that this forum leans so far left that it is a miracle that it does not fall over. I made the statement because it is the perception of many centrist and conservative voters that it is an accurate one. If a Democrat wanted to appeal to those voters, they would have to shake that perception. In politics, perception is reality.
-
Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.
A semi-rhetorical answer. Because one definition of a libertarian is someone who is generally fiscally conservative but also socially liberal, which used to be called a classical liberal.
-
As for the pin-the-tail-on-the-extremist-left-group game, I am not playing. I know damn well that this forum leans so far left that it is a miracle that it does not fall over. I made the statement because it is the perception of many centrist and conservative voters that it is an accurate one. If a Democrat wanted to appeal to those voters, they would have to shake that perception. In politics, perception is reality.
Because you would lose. If you could actually think of any extreme leftist groups that Democratic candidates are *in actual reality* beholden to, seems like you would have listed them. So it's clear that you can't.
The point is, people trot out this false equivalence BS. If someone truly believes both parties are equally evil and crazy, fine, I can't stop you. But it's the right wing that's become extreme. Not the left. regulator *wants* it to be the left that's extreme, and he *still* can't come up with any evidence that that's the case. I think that's telling.
-
As for the pin-the-tail-on-the-extremist-left-group game, I am not playing. I know damn well that this forum leans so far left that it is a miracle that it does not fall over. I made the statement because it is the perception of many centrist and conservative voters that it is an accurate one. If a Democrat wanted to appeal to those voters, they would have to shake that perception. In politics, perception is reality.
Because you would lose. If you could actually think of any extreme leftist groups that Democratic candidates are *in actual reality* beholden to, seems like you would have listed them. So it's clear that you can't.
The point is, people trot out this false equivalence BS. If someone truly believes both parties are equally evil and crazy, fine, I can't stop you. But it's the right wing that's become extreme. Not the left. regulator *wants* it to be the left that's extreme, and he *still* can't come up with any evidence that that's the case. I think that's telling.
Not so much. I just don't particularly care to be attacked by the usual suspects. As I imagine you already know, I think that all major politicians are shitbags that should pretty much serve out their terms in jail.
-
That and why is everyone still driving around in an age of super fast internet? Like a banker actually has to drive to a bank to do business? That is so 2005.
This is something that maddens me. Much of the last 5 to 10 years of my career involved work that I absolutely did not need to be physically present in an office to accomplish. As a matter of fact, I would have been noticeably more productive telecommuting. Guess how many days were allowed as remote work during my last several full time, permanent jobs? Zero. I think this has a lot to do with office culture and management's silly attempts to assert control. Good luck changing it.
YES!
I work as an engineer designing systems and programming software. I physically need to be at a building for face to face meetings maybe one day a week. There is no reason of any kind for me to be physically at the building 80% of the time. Management allows occasional work from home (to a maximum of one day per week), but the process you have to go through to actually do it is so onerous that in our company of two thousand I'd be surprised if three people regularly work from home. This is stupid, and entirely a corporate culture thing. I've had three jobs where the working from home thing was pretty much the same now, so it appears to be the norm.
-
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.
Yes, I'm saying this. It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.
How do you propose to reduce graft in the procurement process with smaller government? It'd be great if it could be done, but I don't think it can be done. Smaller government is only more efficient if all the people running it can be trusted, but they can't. If you make it too small, there aren't enough checks and balances to prevent graft.
No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.
The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.
Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves. Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel. The problem that you cite is already self-correcting. A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.
Of course we can control urban sprawl; we built it on purpose in the first place! Sprawl was designed by the urban planners of the '50s and '60s based on the ideas of people like Le Corbusier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier#Influence) (who thought commuting by automobile was fucking wonderful), single-use zoning, and low-density zoning (which, in large part, was a racially-motivated response to desegregation: if you can't stop black people from moving into the white neighborhood by law, you can do it by making the white neighborhood have large, unaffordable lots). Back then, a lot of people thought car-centric development, bulldozing urban neighborhoods to build freeways (also racially-motivated, by the way), malls and business parks, etc. were actually good ideas and that mode of development was not just encouraged but enforced by urban planners themselves, via zoning.
Sprawl isn't just caused by economic forces; it's caused by the confluence of economic forces and bad government policy. It could have been (at least partially) prevented by good government policy.
Even to this day the zoning code in a lot of places is based on outdated '50s ideas. For example, my neighborhood, which was built before the '50s, has severe issues getting new in-fill development that works properly because the zoning code insists on things like deep setbacks from the street and excessively-large amounts of required parking. In fact, my neighborhood is conducting a survey of the business district right now counting the business square-footage and the number of parking spaces, and we suspect that the results will prove that it is literally impossible for new businesses to get operating permits because of minimum parking requirements.
-
Well, Clinton was found to have sent classified info on her private email account. I wonder if she can survive that.
<-- This alleged-Democrat sure as Hell hopes not!
A Republican Unicorn--social libertarian, an actual social libertarian, prochoice everything from drugs to abortion to guns to gays, and who is a moderate fiscal conservative, I'd give money to him/her just to try to save the poor thing from extinction. I actually have some friends like this, maybe I should encourage them to run for office.
Yes, you should!
Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.
Because the taxonomy is not well-formed (or at least, most people use it incorrectly). The liberal equivalent of a libertarian is more or less the Green Party, but everybody forgets they exist. A lot of people don't know that a big part of their ideology is "grassroots democracy" (a.k.a. anti-Federalism, a.k.a. States' Rights, a.k.a. small [Federal] government, etc.), for example. Libertarians and Greens would realize they have a lot in common if they would just try to stop shoehorning themselves into opposite ends of a grossly-inaccurate single-dimension political spectrum. The only real sticking point is their differing opinions on how to solve the tragedy of the commons (Greens favor regulation; Libertarians favor privatization).
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
35% - 65% want abortion after 20 weeks in all circumstances?
The attached indicates 56% support a limit at 20 weeks. The bill being referred to (and signed by Kasich) set the limit at 20 weeks with limited exceptions.
Given the public support, I don't know Kasich's signing could be considered extreme.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
35% - 65% want abortion after 20 weeks in all circumstances?
The attached indicates 56% support a limit at 20 weeks. The bill being referred to (and signed by Kasich) set the limit at 20 weeks with limited exceptions.
Given the public support, I don't know Kasich's signing could be considered extreme.
I don't see anything attached. Regulator was asserting the group was "extremist". Depending on how you ask the question of support for abortion (with various phrasings and caveats and exemptions like life of the mother, rape, incest, etc) and when and where you ask the question I've seen rates supporting abortion in the general range I provided.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
-
I don't see anything attached. Regulator was asserting the group was "extremist". Depending on how you ask the question of support for abortion (with various phrasings and caveats and exemptions like life of the mother, rape, incest, etc) and when and where you ask the question I've seen rates supporting abortion in the general range I provided.
My fault on the attachment. Here's it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/22/the-most-surprising-part-about-the-gops-failed-20-week-abortion-ban-push-it-was-popular/
Kasich signed a bill along those lines (banning abortion after 20 weeks in most circumstances) and NARAL is calling him extreme. If Naral is attacking that, I would say their position on the topic (abortion after 20 weeks) is extreme given the public sentiment against abortion after 20 weeks. If you want to attack Clinton abortion, you don't quote right to life. Kind of the same thing on attacking Kasich with Naral.
Kasich is a moderate who can actually cooperate. I hate to see people derailing him over this single issue especially when the majority of the populace agrees with him.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
Hilarious! The Sanders supporters in my feed are the kind of mindless drones who love everything and everyone on the left side of the spectrum with out any filters, reservations, or thought. They seem completely uneducated when it comes to economics, business and the real world.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Welcome to how the right feels about "reasonable gun control"! :D
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
Hilarious! The Sanders supporters in my feed are the kind of mindless drones who love everything and everyone on the left side of the spectrum with out any filters, reservations, or thought. They seem completely uneducated when it comes to economics, business and the real world.
Yes, the common theme I see in Bernie supports I know is "I'm poor and should get some rich people's money." How and why, specifically, are conspicuously absent, but they're certain that the CEO of, say, GE is ripping them off somehow.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
Hilarious! The Sanders supporters in my feed are the kind of mindless drones who love everything and everyone on the left side of the spectrum with out any filters, reservations, or thought. They seem completely uneducated when it comes to economics, business and the real world.
Yes, the common theme I see in Bernie supports I know is "I'm poor and should get some rich people's money." How and why, specifically, are conspicuously absent, but they're certain that the CEO of, say, GE is ripping them off somehow.
Yeah, that definitely explains why Sanders is the leading vote-getter in this poll.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Welcome to how the right feels about "reasonable gun control"! :D
And this is precisely why "left" and "right" are total bullshit: I, for one, feel exactly the same way about restrictions on gun ownership as I do about restrictions on abortion!
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Welcome to how the right feels about "reasonable gun control"! :D
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
So your wife is never going to have a child? Her income does not effect your budget?
There are states where it is more unsafe to be a birthing or pregnant woman than multiple third world countries. In fact, we are the only country, in the first countries, that have increased our maternal mortality rate when other countries are decreasing it. And if you break it down in states, it is the red states that are pulling us down. So that does not affect your vote? It sure impacted my husband's.
-
Yeah, we are all a bunch of poor schmucks that just want to steal YOUR money so we can retire early!
muhwhuahahaha
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Welcome to how the right feels about "reasonable gun control"! :D
And this is precisely why "left" and "right" are total bullshit: I, for one, feel exactly the same way about restrictions on gun ownership as I do about restrictions on abortion!
Perhaps abortions could be provided via gun to make everyone on both sides happy.
-
Omg following, so juicy. I would LOVE to hear from, learn about a moderate fiscally responsible Republican who has a reasonable knowledge of world history, respects diplomacy over always saber rattling, is science-loving, thinks nature is an asset we should responsibly maintain and use, says sure why not legalize pot, thinks women know best what to do with their bodies and things in their bodies, refuses to kowtow to the Taliban-like US religious right, says who gives a shit if gays get married, no big whup, and thinks there should be good education and a health/safety net for the unfortunates of our society. ETA: and doesn't need to kill every union.
Maybe Kasich?
I don't know about the rest of the list but on women's issues he does not believe women should make their own decisions.
"Kasich is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's going out there trying to sell himself as a moderate, he's no moderate. He is an extremist," says Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, an abortion rights advocacy group. "He is—if not the worst—among the worst of anti-choice governors in this country's history."
Since Kasich entered office in 2011, he has enacted 16 anti-abortion measures. Some directly restrict abortion access, such as the 20-week late-term ban that he signed six months after entering office. Others limit the work of abortion providers. For example, in 2013 he signed the state's budget bill, which included one provision that prohibits state-funded rape crisis counselors from referring women to abortion services and another that stripped Planned Parenthood of an estimated $1.4 million in federal family-planning dollars. The measures have had drastic consequences for access to abortion and medical care for Ohio women: During Kasich's time in office, the number of abortion providers in the state has dropped from 16 to eight.
I love it! An extremist group head calling a centrist an extremist!
So a group whose positions are supported by 35-65% of the country depending on how you phrase the question is "extremist"?
35% - 65% want abortion after 20 weeks in all circumstances?
The attached indicates 56% support a limit at 20 weeks. The bill being referred to (and signed by Kasich) set the limit at 20 weeks with limited exceptions.
Given the public support, I don't know Kasich's signing could be considered extreme.
If you know anything about how devolopment works for a fetus, and understand that we can't see developmental errors until the 20 week ultrasound, yes saying that you can't have an abortion after twenty weeks is extreme. It is saying that women can't make a decision, for their medical care, while the fetus is still incapable of surviving outside of womb. It is saying that women can't get all the information they need to make an informed decision and then decide because of an arbitrary deadline. Oh, yea, except it was not arbitrary, they made it twenty weeks so women who found out that a fetus would not develop normally, including being born and living very short periods of time with extreme amount of pain, could not make a decision they disagreed with.
-
Well, Clinton was found to have sent classified info on her private email account. I wonder if she can survive that.
<-- This alleged-Democrat sure as Hell hopes not!
A Republican Unicorn--social libertarian, an actual social libertarian, prochoice everything from drugs to abortion to guns to gays, and who is a moderate fiscal conservative, I'd give money to him/her just to try to save the poor thing from extinction. I actually have some friends like this, maybe I should encourage them to run for office.
Yes, you should!
Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.
Because the taxonomy is not well-formed (or at least, most people use it incorrectly). The liberal equivalent of a libertarian is more or less the Green Party, but everybody forgets they exist. A lot of people don't know that a big part of their ideology is "grassroots democracy" (a.k.a. anti-Federalism, a.k.a. States' Rights, a.k.a. small [Federal] government, etc.), for example. Libertarians and Greens would realize they have a lot in common if they would just try to stop shoehorning themselves into opposite ends of a grossly-inaccurate single-dimension political spectrum. The only real sticking point is their differing opinions on how to solve the tragedy of the commons (Greens favor regulation; Libertarians favor privatization).
Thanks for this, it was what I'm trying to get at with my unicorn description. I'm fairly lefty, but DH and I were in the Navy in the past, and DH works for the guvmint now in a military appropriations office. His travails and the crap financial decisions show us that the waste Congress should attack is not the stuff they go after. The public doesn't want to hear about military acquisitions issues, boring, complicated, hard to take on. No one wants mindlessly, wastfully big, government, but the two sides get stuck on bring out the radical base topics, things that stir up the peeps.
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Although abortion gets a lot of press, I wonder what percentage of people actually cast their votes with abortion in mind. I have to admit I was shocked several years ago when a good friend of my wife mentioned that she was voting solely on this issue. Well I just looked it up -- Looks like around 15% will not vote for someone with an opposing view. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx
It is interesting that black women have abortions at twice the rate as white women. It is ironic then that the Republican party opposes terminating black babies and the Democrats supports terminating them. Go figure?
Wouldn't the smart candidate simply state that they don't have a current policy on this matter and let's move on to the economy. Or perhaps finesse it a bit by saying "I don't think abortions are a good idea or a good choice for birth control but knowing that 35-40% of all teen pregnancies are the result of incest I can see women wanting access to this" Seems like the logical middle ground of birth control is never talked about rationally. For instance most of Western Europe has a very, very low number of unplanned pregnancies. Seems like a good leader would point this out and say ---- "let's focus on greatly reducing the number of abortions by finding out how Europe does it and copy their lead."
I actually lead a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Task force in a small Republican/Baptist community many years ago. All the local preachers were on the task force. All had stories of teen pregnancies in their flocks. I was amazed that none of them were opposed to effective contraception. Perhaps that is where the national discussion needs to head. At least that is my opinion on this divisive issue.
I mean -- most everyone knows and agrees that abortions are not a preferential choice for birth control. So let's set a goal of reducing them by 90%.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
Hilarious! The Sanders supporters in my feed are the kind of mindless drones who love everything and everyone on the left side of the spectrum with out any filters, reservations, or thought. They seem completely uneducated when it comes to economics, business and the real world.
Yes, the common theme I see in Bernie supports I know is "I'm poor and should get some rich people's money." How and why, specifically, are conspicuously absent, but they're certain that the CEO of, say, GE is ripping them off somehow.
Yeah, that definitely explains why Sanders is the leading vote-getter in this poll.
You do understand that we are discussing what is popping up in FB feeds rather than what supposed voters are telling pollsters, right? There might be a tiny bit of a difference between those two populations.
-
Well, Clinton was found to have sent classified info on her private email account. I wonder if she can survive that.
<-- This alleged-Democrat sure as Hell hopes not!
A Republican Unicorn--social libertarian, an actual social libertarian, prochoice everything from drugs to abortion to guns to gays, and who is a moderate fiscal conservative, I'd give money to him/her just to try to save the poor thing from extinction. I actually have some friends like this, maybe I should encourage them to run for office.
Yes, you should!
Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.
Because the taxonomy is not well-formed (or at least, most people use it incorrectly). The liberal equivalent of a libertarian is more or less the Green Party, but everybody forgets they exist. A lot of people don't know that a big part of their ideology is "grassroots democracy" (a.k.a. anti-Federalism, a.k.a. States' Rights, a.k.a. small [Federal] government, etc.), for example. Libertarians and Greens would realize they have a lot in common if they would just try to stop shoehorning themselves into opposite ends of a grossly-inaccurate single-dimension political spectrum. The only real sticking point is their differing opinions on how to solve the tragedy of the commons (Greens favor regulation; Libertarians favor privatization).
Thanks for this, it was what I'm trying to get at with my unicorn description. I'm fairly lefty, but DH and I were in the Navy in the past, and DH works for the guvmint now in a military appropriations office. His travails and the crap financial decisions show us that the waste Congress should attack is not the stuff they go after. The public doesn't want to hear about military acquisitions issues, boring, complicated, hard to take on. No one wants mindlessly, wastfully big, government, but the two sides get stuck on bring out the radical base topics, things that stir up the peeps.
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Although abortion gets a lot of press, I wonder what percentage of people actually cast their votes with abortion in mind. I have to admit I was shocked several years ago when a good friend of my wife mentioned that she was voting solely on this issue. Well I just looked it up -- Looks like around 15% will not vote for someone with an opposing view. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx
It is interesting that black women have abortions at twice the rate as white women. It is ironic then that the Republican party opposes terminating black babies and the Democrats supports terminating them. Go figure?
Wouldn't the smart candidate simply state that they don't have a current policy on this matter and let's move on to the economy. Or perhaps finesse it a bit by saying "I don't think abortions are a good idea or a good choice for birth control but knowing that 35-40% of all teen pregnancies are the result of incest I can see women wanting access to this" Seems like the logical middle ground of birth control is never talked about rationally. For instance most of Western Europe has a very, very low number of unplanned pregnancies. Seems like a good leader would point this out and say ---- "let's focus on greatly reducing the number of abortions by finding out how Europe does it and copy their lead."
I actually lead a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Task force in a small Republican/Baptist community many years ago. All the local preachers were on the task force. All had stories of teen pregnancies in their flocks. I was amazed that none of them were opposed to effective contraception. Perhaps that is where the national discussion needs to head. At least that is my opinion on this divisive issue.
I mean -- most everyone knows and agrees that abortions are not a preferential choice for birth control. So let's set a goal of reducing them by 90%.
Lol, well that mean sex education and birth control, things the GOP are against. They done programs were they give access to birth control and sex education and abortion rates plummet. We know exactly how to do it, but the GOP is not ok with it. Which is how the GOP gets a rep for being anti-woman and not anti-abortion. Because if they were, their actions would be drastically different.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Welcome to how the right feels about "reasonable gun control"! :D
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
So your wife is never going to have a child? Her income does not effect your budget?
There are states where it is more unsafe to be a birthing or pregnant woman than multiple third world countries. In fact, we are the only country, in the first countries, that have increased our maternal mortality rate when other countries are decreasing it. And if you break it down in states, it is the red states that are pulling us down. So that does not affect your vote? It sure impacted my husband's.
We already have a kid. We plan to have another, but I don't consider the possibility of a danger to my wife's life a significant factor to sway my vote (She drives to work every day, far more dangerous). Besides, I'm not in the south. Her income is roughly the same as mine, and variations can be attributable to fewer qualifications (I have a grad degree, she does not) and less job switching in search of raises. I don't believe that when you control for those types of variables a significant gender/wage gap is present in professional roles.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
Hilarious! The Sanders supporters in my feed are the kind of mindless drones who love everything and everyone on the left side of the spectrum with out any filters, reservations, or thought. They seem completely uneducated when it comes to economics, business and the real world.
Yes, the common theme I see in Bernie supports I know is "I'm poor and should get some rich people's money." How and why, specifically, are conspicuously absent, but they're certain that the CEO of, say, GE is ripping them off somehow.
Yeah, that definitely explains why Sanders is the leading vote-getter in this poll.
You do understand that we are discussing what is popping up in FB feeds rather than what supposed voters are telling pollsters, right? There might be a tiny bit of a difference between those two populations.
You do realize he was talking about the poll AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD, right? There might be a tiny bit of difference between idiots on FB and people on this forum.
or is there?
-
Well, Clinton was found to have sent classified info on her private email account. I wonder if she can survive that.
<-- This alleged-Democrat sure as Hell hopes not!
A Republican Unicorn--social libertarian, an actual social libertarian, prochoice everything from drugs to abortion to guns to gays, and who is a moderate fiscal conservative, I'd give money to him/her just to try to save the poor thing from extinction. I actually have some friends like this, maybe I should encourage them to run for office.
Yes, you should!
Semi-rhetorical question: how come when someone is essentially conservative but more "accepting" on some social issues, they are considered libertarian? But the same POV on social issues in a liberal person is just...liberal.
Because the taxonomy is not well-formed (or at least, most people use it incorrectly). The liberal equivalent of a libertarian is more or less the Green Party, but everybody forgets they exist. A lot of people don't know that a big part of their ideology is "grassroots democracy" (a.k.a. anti-Federalism, a.k.a. States' Rights, a.k.a. small [Federal] government, etc.), for example. Libertarians and Greens would realize they have a lot in common if they would just try to stop shoehorning themselves into opposite ends of a grossly-inaccurate single-dimension political spectrum. The only real sticking point is their differing opinions on how to solve the tragedy of the commons (Greens favor regulation; Libertarians favor privatization).
Thanks for this, it was what I'm trying to get at with my unicorn description. I'm fairly lefty, but DH and I were in the Navy in the past, and DH works for the guvmint now in a military appropriations office. His travails and the crap financial decisions show us that the waste Congress should attack is not the stuff they go after. The public doesn't want to hear about military acquisitions issues, boring, complicated, hard to take on. No one wants mindlessly, wastfully big, government, but the two sides get stuck on bring out the radical base topics, things that stir up the peeps.
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Although abortion gets a lot of press, I wonder what percentage of people actually cast their votes with abortion in mind. I have to admit I was shocked several years ago when a good friend of my wife mentioned that she was voting solely on this issue. Well I just looked it up -- Looks like around 15% will not vote for someone with an opposing view. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157886/abortion-threshold-issue-one-six-voters.aspx
It is interesting that black women have abortions at twice the rate as white women. It is ironic then that the Republican party opposes terminating black babies and the Democrats supports terminating them. Go figure?
Wouldn't the smart candidate simply state that they don't have a current policy on this matter and let's move on to the economy. Or perhaps finesse it a bit by saying "I don't think abortions are a good idea or a good choice for birth control but knowing that 35-40% of all teen pregnancies are the result of incest I can see women wanting access to this" Seems like the logical middle ground of birth control is never talked about rationally. For instance most of Western Europe has a very, very low number of unplanned pregnancies. Seems like a good leader would point this out and say ---- "let's focus on greatly reducing the number of abortions by finding out how Europe does it and copy their lead."
I actually lead a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Task force in a small Republican/Baptist community many years ago. All the local preachers were on the task force. All had stories of teen pregnancies in their flocks. I was amazed that none of them were opposed to effective contraception. Perhaps that is where the national discussion needs to head. At least that is my opinion on this divisive issue.
I mean -- most everyone knows and agrees that abortions are not a preferential choice for birth control. So let's set a goal of reducing them by 90%.
I always thought the "safe, legal, and rare" standpoint was a good one. If I was running, my comment would be something about "I don't intend to introduce or propose any new legislation on the topic." Done. I'm not for it, I'm not against it, I'm not trying to change it.
-
Bernie is generating the largest crowds by far of any candidate. He's getting Obama-size crowds. I don't know what the next closest candidate's largest attendance at a rally was, but putting these all together says that Sanders' 11,000 people rally in Phoenix is larger than any other candidate's rally anywhere in the country. And since then he's had rallies of 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in LA, 15,000 in Seattle.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/09/bernie-sanders-breaks-record-drawing-15000-supporters-seattle-rally.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sanders-california-20150811-story.html
Based on Bernie's supporters in my facebook feed, a stadium full of Bernieites can maybe sorta afford to support him to the tune of about $2k, total, if you promise not to cash the check until next week. And oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get off work on Election Day, I gotta work a double shift at the diner.
Hilarious! The Sanders supporters in my feed are the kind of mindless drones who love everything and everyone on the left side of the spectrum with out any filters, reservations, or thought. They seem completely uneducated when it comes to economics, business and the real world.
Yes, the common theme I see in Bernie supports I know is "I'm poor and should get some rich people's money." How and why, specifically, are conspicuously absent, but they're certain that the CEO of, say, GE is ripping them off somehow.
Yeah, that definitely explains why Sanders is the leading vote-getter in this poll.
You do understand that we are discussing what is popping up in FB feeds rather than what supposed voters are telling pollsters, right? There might be a tiny bit of a difference between those two populations.
You do realize he was talking about the poll AT THE TOP OF THIS THREAD, right? There might be a tiny bit of difference between idiots on FB and people on this forum.
or is there?
Who is "he"?
MY point was half joking, and half pointing out that "filling a stadium" does not necessarily translate into "obtaining votes", especially when your demographic is known to be fickle, undependable (in a voting sense) and lacking in contributions.
-
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
-
MY point was half joking, and half pointing out that "filling a stadium" does not necessarily translate into "obtaining votes", especially when your demographic is known to be fickle, undependable (in a voting sense) and lacking in contributions.
That is a hell of a lot of assumptions right there. But you're right, maybe he needs some big corporations that will let him live in their pocket.
-
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
This woman and her husband were not interested in an abortion, in fact they called the fetus their "miracle child" http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-new-abortion-law-is-driving-women-to-extremes/:
Instead they learned that their miracle child had a brain defect so severe that the doctor described it as incompatible with life. Gasping, Sarah asked whether surgery or drugs could fix the condition, but the doctor shook his head. “If you’re looking for a baby that’s going to go to school and play soccer,” he told her, “this is not that child.” The doctor offered to do extra tests but added that the results would be the same. The baby would most likely be stillborn and if it survived birth, would suffer seizures every day of its short life. “If that were me,” Sarah thought, “I’d rather go to God.”
They ended up having to leave Texas for the abortion. And if we get a republican in the White House these laws are going to become the laws of the land. And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
-
MY point was half joking, and half pointing out that "filling a stadium" does not necessarily translate into "obtaining votes", especially when your demographic is known to be fickle, undependable (in a voting sense) and lacking in contributions.
That is a hell of a lot of assumptions right there. But you're right, maybe he needs some big corporations that will let him live in their pocket.
Obama had those fickle young voters and won, twice.
-
And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
Are you referring to http://www.rt.com/uk/229303-compulsory-sterilization-woman-disabilities/ or something else?
-
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
This woman and her husband were not interested in an abortion, in fact they called the fetus their "miracle child" http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-new-abortion-law-is-driving-women-to-extremes/:
Instead they learned that their miracle child had a brain defect so severe that the doctor described it as incompatible with life. Gasping, Sarah asked whether surgery or drugs could fix the condition, but the doctor shook his head. “If you’re looking for a baby that’s going to go to school and play soccer,” he told her, “this is not that child.” The doctor offered to do extra tests but added that the results would be the same. The baby would most likely be stillborn and if it survived birth, would suffer seizures every day of its short life. “If that were me,” Sarah thought, “I’d rather go to God.”
They ended up having to leave Texas for the abortion. And if we get a republican in the White House these laws are going to become the laws of the land. And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
Yes, I understand shit happens and that there are lots of terrible possibilities.
I simply don't vote based on a small possibility on one specific issue. It's not that important to me, versus, say, tax policy, which will certainly affect me. What you are describing is an extremely emotional, irrational way to cast a vote.
-
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
This woman and her husband were not interested in an abortion, in fact they called the fetus their "miracle child" http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-new-abortion-law-is-driving-women-to-extremes/:
Instead they learned that their miracle child had a brain defect so severe that the doctor described it as incompatible with life. Gasping, Sarah asked whether surgery or drugs could fix the condition, but the doctor shook his head. “If you’re looking for a baby that’s going to go to school and play soccer,” he told her, “this is not that child.” The doctor offered to do extra tests but added that the results would be the same. The baby would most likely be stillborn and if it survived birth, would suffer seizures every day of its short life. “If that were me,” Sarah thought, “I’d rather go to God.”
They ended up having to leave Texas for the abortion. And if we get a republican in the White House these laws are going to become the laws of the land. And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
Nonsense. That's EXACTLY the equivalent of saying "Hillary's going to take ALL your guns if she gets in office!!!1!"
-
And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
Are you referring to http://www.rt.com/uk/229303-compulsory-sterilization-woman-disabilities/ or something else?
Oh, no. I am not talking about that. I'm talking about a woman who was forced on bed rest because her doctors decide that was the course of treatment she should take for her fetus to have the best chance of life. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460
Keep in mind that stress can increase your risk of miscarriage and no study has shown that bed rest itself (vs reducing stress etc) will stop a miscarriage.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460
And no, it was not only case.
-
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
This woman and her husband were not interested in an abortion, in fact they called the fetus their "miracle child" http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-new-abortion-law-is-driving-women-to-extremes/:
Instead they learned that their miracle child had a brain defect so severe that the doctor described it as incompatible with life. Gasping, Sarah asked whether surgery or drugs could fix the condition, but the doctor shook his head. “If you’re looking for a baby that’s going to go to school and play soccer,” he told her, “this is not that child.” The doctor offered to do extra tests but added that the results would be the same. The baby would most likely be stillborn and if it survived birth, would suffer seizures every day of its short life. “If that were me,” Sarah thought, “I’d rather go to God.”
They ended up having to leave Texas for the abortion. And if we get a republican in the White House these laws are going to become the laws of the land. And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
Yes, I understand shit happens and that there are lots of terrible possibilities.
I simply don't vote based on a small possibility on one specific issue. It's not that important to me, versus, say, tax policy, which will certainly affect me. What you are describing is an extremely emotional, irrational way to cast a vote.
Thank you for deciding that voting to be able to keep my right to be an autonomous human being with equal rights under the law is emotional and irrational especially when people have died because of lack of access to abortions. You know there were people who agreed with you. They were the ones back when women were trying to gain the right to vote, who said women should not be allowed to vote. I'll give your opinion all the consideration it deserves.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.
Yes, I'm saying this. It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.
No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.
The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.
Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves. Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel. The problem that you cite is already self-correcting. A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.
-
While it's true that our nationwide mess of a transportation network is complex, it is certainly not naturally occurring. Transportation and urban development have the most obscured signals of any major segment (transportation is about 1/6 of US economy) of the economy, other than healthcare, of course (also ~1/6). Other posters nailed the issue on zoning; it's commonly discriminatory (or at least designed to be) and negatively impacts development patterns to have houses spread far apart and to set up zoning for single-use, when mixed use (store under a residence) is such a vastly more productive configuration. The length of roadway per capita has increased tenfold in many cities and towns since the 1950s, and the maintenance on all that is a huge drag.
Then there's the issue that more of our expressways should probably be toll roads. I lived near DC for four years, and it's something incredible to see how bad people are at picking where to live there. They live far out from where they need to work, but make sure they get a town near an interstate exit. Then they and all the other people in their new neighborhood clog up the road, so it's no longer fast to get into town. SO then they build a massive expansion of the interstate. It's either too little, too late, or worse yet it may actually do the job. That's worse because it paves the way for the next town further out to sprout and cause the problem anew.
Within towns you have terrible zoning that cause things like big box stores with huge parking lots. Minimum parking requirements baffle me; who demands that an ugly store, as a requirement of its presence, ruin a bunch more land with parking that won't be filled more than about two Saturdays per year?!? But those stores don't get to pay their costs, because the town is the one who pays the HUGE cost of running sewage and huge roads to those places, which are substantially less productive per unit of area than smaller stores in downtown-type areas. And people complain that big-box stores push the local guys out of business, but its the huge systematic subsidies for the Wal-Marts that make local stores' more intrinsically sensible development patterns, suddenly uncompetitive.
Then add to all of this the number of towns where towns build roads so wide that people are uncomfortable to cross the street. That's why you shouldn't ask the fire department how wide they need the roads, and why you certainly shouldn't value their answer when they inevitably answer "wide enough to three-point turn in my hook-and-ladder, please".
-
Oh, no. I am not talking about that. I'm talking about a woman who was forced on bed rest because her doctors decide that was the course of treatment she should take for her fetus to have the best chance of life. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460
Thanks. Yes, it seems the one judge who issued that order overreached. A Florida Circuit Court did overturn that decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_v._Florida.
-
Oh, no. I am not talking about that. I'm talking about a woman who was forced on bed rest because her doctors decide that was the course of treatment she should take for her fetus to have the best chance of life. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460
Thanks. Yes, it seems the one judge who issued that order overreached. A Florida Circuit Court did overturn that decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_v._Florida.
Except it is not the only case. https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/02/more-pregnant-women-being-stripped-their-rights
And it is an example of a larger trend that planned by of the right.
A quote that should worry any woman or frankly any man who cares for women: Other states, including Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin, “automatically invalidate a woman’s advance directive if she is pregnant.”
-
If you know anything about how devolopment works for a fetus, and understand that we can't see developmental errors until the 20 week ultrasound, yes saying that you can't have an abortion after twenty weeks is extreme. It is saying that women can make a decision, for their medical care, while the fetus is still incapable of surviving outside of womb. It is saying that women can't get all the information they need to make an informed decision and then decide because of an arbitrary deadline. Oh, yea, except it was not arbitrary, they made it twenty weeks so women who found out that a fetus would not developmental normally, including being born and living very short periods of time with extreme amount of pain, could not make a decision they disagreed with.
Gin - The majority of the public disagrees with your position. Not with abortion in general, but late term abortion specifically (late term being defined as 20 weeks plus). When the majority of people agree with Kasich on this issue, I don't think extreme his the proper term to describe is position.
Regarding my knowledge of the subject, I've actually been in the position of having the choice put upon my wife and myself after the ultrasound when an abnormality was found at 18 or 20 weeks. I've given the subject a lot of thought since then.
The real argument is what point the fetus becomes a baby. Naral would argue at birth. I (and many others) would argue some time prior to birth.
Lastly, the law Kasich signed contains an exception for medical emergencies so the mothers health should be protected as much as possible.
-
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
This woman and her husband were not interested in an abortion, in fact they called the fetus their "miracle child" http://www.texasobserver.org/texas-new-abortion-law-is-driving-women-to-extremes/:
Instead they learned that their miracle child had a brain defect so severe that the doctor described it as incompatible with life. Gasping, Sarah asked whether surgery or drugs could fix the condition, but the doctor shook his head. “If you’re looking for a baby that’s going to go to school and play soccer,” he told her, “this is not that child.” The doctor offered to do extra tests but added that the results would be the same. The baby would most likely be stillborn and if it survived birth, would suffer seizures every day of its short life. “If that were me,” Sarah thought, “I’d rather go to God.”
They ended up having to leave Texas for the abortion. And if we get a republican in the White House these laws are going to become the laws of the land. And given that judges have already forcibly restrained women because of being pregnant, don't think you can just go out of the country if it passes.
Yes, I understand shit happens and that there are lots of terrible possibilities.
I simply don't vote based on a small possibility on one specific issue. It's not that important to me, versus, say, tax policy, which will certainly affect me. What you are describing is an extremely emotional, irrational way to cast a vote.
Thank you for deciding that voting to be able to keep my right to be an autonomous human being with equal rights under the law is emotional and irrational especially when people have died because of lack of access to abortions.
No. I'm saying voting based on the fear of that outcome, which is tiny, is emotional and irrational.
We don't vote yes/no on issues in the US, we vote for people who have a wide variety of views on various issues. Therefore, a cost/benefit analysis must be done on a person's stance on each issue to rank importance the voter places on the issue along with the position the politician has taken. Based on this analysis, I've determined that abortion rights is a low-priority issue for me, because it is unlikely to affect me or my family in a significant way.
You know there were people who agreed with you. They were the ones back when women were trying to gain the right to vote, who said women should not be allowed to vote.
No. Just no.
-
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
Wow, you actually don't get the point I was making, do you?
I'll spell it out for you: if "they" succeed in taking away women's rights and gay rights, they'll keep taking away other rights until they take away one that you actually do care about. (Unless you happen to be of exactly the same ideology as them, in which case you might be okay with it.)
FYI, Martin Niemöller was a Protestant pastor who spent 7 years in a NAZI concentration camp.
- He wasn't a Jew.
- He wasn't a Communist.
- He wasn't a Gypsy.
- He wasn't disabled.
In fact, he wasn't a member of any of the demographic groups commonly thought of as victims of the Holocaust. What he was -- the only thing he was -- was "not a NAZI." And that was enough to get him sent to the camp.
The point is, failing to oppose injustice just because it doesn't affect you personally is cowardly and immoral (not to mention counterproductive, as Niemöller learned the hard way). The religious right's views do affect you because they affect society and you are a part of society. You have a responsibility to defend those who would be harmed, even if you would not be harmed yourself.
-
Well, Clinton was found to have sent classified info on her private email account. I wonder if she can survive that.
<-- This alleged-Democrat sure as Hell hopes not!
I was somewhat sanguine about the email issue until this. Having had a security clearance and knowing the issue of security violations, I'm very nervous for her alternating with pissed off. This is not a private, albeit inequitable power-balanced, blowjob, it's end your career stuff. We'll see. Ugh. I gotta do actual work so I can retire!
I am super pissed she has gotten away with this (so far).
-
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
Wow, you actually don't get the point I was making, do you?
I'll spell it out for you: if "they" succeed in taking away women's rights and gay rights, they'll keep taking away other rights until they take away one that you actually do care about. (Unless you happen to be of exactly the same ideology as them, in which case you might be okay with it.)
FYI, Martin Niemöller was a Protestant pastor who spent 7 years in a NAZI concentration camp.
- He wasn't a Jew.
- He wasn't a Communist.
- He wasn't a Gypsy.
- He wasn't disabled.
In fact, he wasn't a member of any of the demographic groups commonly thought of as victims of the Holocaust. What he was -- the only thing he was -- was "not a NAZI." And that was enough to get him sent to the camp.
The point is, failing to oppose injustice just because it doesn't affect you personally is cowardly and immoral (not to mention counterproductive, as Niemöller learned the hard way). The religious right's views do affect you because they affect society and you are a part of society. You have a responsibility to defend those who would be harmed, even if you would not be harmed yourself.
So basically I'm morally obligated to vote in agreement with you? Okay. Nice.
-
Personally, I dislike the religious right immensely, but as I am a straight, white, married male, their idiotic views tend not to impact me or my family, and thus they aren't issues on which I base my vote. I wish they'd adapt them, because I think they'd be much more successful if they left alone gays, abortions, and birth control, but as a practical matter it doesn't impact my life and thus sway my vote.
Apparently, you have never heard of Martin Niemöller.
"They"are going to take away my right to a wedding I already had or an abortion I am not interested in getting? Not sure how comparison follows.
Wow, you actually don't get the point I was making, do you?
I'll spell it out for you: if "they" succeed in taking away women's rights and gay rights, they'll keep taking away other rights until they take away one that you actually do care about. (Unless you happen to be of exactly the same ideology as them, in which case you might be okay with it.)
FYI, Martin Niemöller was a Protestant pastor who spent 7 years in a NAZI concentration camp.
- He wasn't a Jew.
- He wasn't a Communist.
- He wasn't a Gypsy.
- He wasn't disabled.
In fact, he wasn't a member of any of the demographic groups commonly thought of as victims of the Holocaust. What he was -- the only thing he was -- was "not a NAZI." And that was enough to get him sent to the camp.
The point is, failing to oppose injustice just because it doesn't affect you personally is cowardly and immoral (not to mention counterproductive, as Niemöller learned the hard way). The religious right's views do affect you because they affect society and you are a part of society. You have a responsibility to defend those who would be harmed, even if you would not be harmed yourself.
So basically I'm morally obligated to vote in agreement with you? Okay. Nice.
Well he did bring up nazi's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-
So the logic is that the Nazis killed or tried to kill virtually everyone who wasn't a Nazi. That the Republican party is opposed to killing millions of babies in the womb each year and opposed to "illegal" aliens from any country taking US citizen's jobs and social benefits. Therefore Jeb Bush is a Nazi and plans to exterminate vast portions of the US population? I'm I reading that right?
Damn those Republicans are tricky bastards. Say you are prolife and then just go kill a bunch of people.
-
So basically I'm morally obligated to vote in agreement with you? Okay. Nice.
No, but IMO you're morally obligated to prioritize civil rights issues above economic issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
So? First of all, sooner or later, somebody was going to do it. Second, I reject all corollaries.
Finally, note that your citation states: "The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies,[citation needed] if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy, or inferring that an argument containing a fallacy must necessarily come to incorrect conclusions." Given that this is in fact a discussion (in part) of civil rights, comparisons are not inappropriate.
So the logic is that... the Republican party is opposed to [civil rights for anyone who disagrees with them].
FTFY.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
So? First of all, sooner or later, somebody was going to do it. Second, I reject all corollaries.
Saying somebody was going to do it (compare Republicans and the Christian right to Nazi's) doesn't make it an accurate comparison.
-
Oh, no. I am not talking about that. I'm talking about a woman who was forced on bed rest because her doctors decide that was the course of treatment she should take for her fetus to have the best chance of life. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460
Thanks. Yes, it seems the one judge who issued that order overreached. A Florida Circuit Court did overturn that decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_v._Florida.
Except it is not the only case. https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/02/more-pregnant-women-being-stripped-their-rights
And it is an example of a larger trend that planned by of the right.
A quote that should worry any woman or frankly any man who cares for women: Other states, including Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Utah, and Wisconsin, “automatically invalidate a woman’s advance directive if she is pregnant.”
Different people can look at the same thing and come away with different impressions. The two of us meet both the "any woman or ... any man who cares for women" criteria, but are not terribly worried about the bolded comment. This follows from the assumption that the advance directive is coming into play due to the brain death of the woman in question.
Someone will no doubt fact check this: we suspect that the vast majority of people in the US would support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life - leaving the extremes to those who say "yes, ever" or "no, never".
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
So? First of all, sooner or later, somebody was going to do it. Second, I reject all corollaries.
Saying somebody was going to do it (compare Republicans and the Christian right to Nazi's) doesn't make it an accurate comparison.
No, I meant that sooner or later somebody was going to mention NAZIs (which is just a re-statement of Godwin's law). I didn't mean to imply anything about the nature of the mentioning in that sentence. In other words, sooner or later Godwin's law would have been invoked, so it is of no consequence that it was by me.
-
Don't forget Godwin's Second Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin's+Second+Law).
I suppose with this post I'm fulfilling Godwin's Third Law, if there is such a thing. Someone else please point out that I just did so so we can all see Godwin's Fourth Law in action.
-
Don't forget Godwin's Second Law (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Godwin's+Second+Law).
I suppose with this post I'm fulfilling Godwin's Third Law, if there is such a thing. Someone else please point out that I just did so so we can all see Godwin's Fourth Law in action.
So pointed.
And...escaping because scary name calling wanna go look at puppy videos
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
I think this is a false equivalency. Maybe its just me, but I just don't see major groups on the left opposed to ALL firearms, promoting constitutional amendments to remove the 2nd amendment or any similar actions that are even close to the anti-abortion groups who wield considerable influence in the GOP, publicly opposing all abortions. Certainly you don't see Democrat presidential candidates with public position that they want to remove all guns like the several GOP presidential candidates (hello, Marco Rubio) who have public positions against abortion that don't allow for any exceptions.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
No it is not. California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area. Multiple of my friends have guns. One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes. No problems there. Most democrats want reasonable restrictions. Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns. But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns. Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
No it is not. California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area. Multiple of my friends have guns. One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes. No problems there. Most democrats want reasonable restrictions. Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns. But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns. Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.
Gin - The only republican I've heard talking about actual legislation to outlaw abortion lately is Huckabee.
With regard to guns, we have tons of laws on guns in this country already.
Some (not all) democrats don't want reasonable restrictions, they want more and more restrictions (than don't work) to make it difficult or impossible to own or use a firearm.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
No it is not. California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area. Multiple of my friends have guns. One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes. No problems there. Most democrats want reasonable restrictions. Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns. But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns. Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.
Gin - The only republican I've heard talking about actual legislation to outlaw abortion lately is Huckabee.
With regard to guns, we have tons of laws on guns in this country already.
Some (not all) democrats don't want reasonable restrictions, they want more and more restrictions (than don't work) to make it difficult or impossible to own or use a firearm.
I can find you quote for every single one except maybe Trump. As well as the progression of laws designed to in effect make there not access even if it is legal.
Can you find me an example of those restrictions? I am not saying you can't find some extremists in the Dems. Not at all. We all have crazies. I mean, come on, Gavin Newson, the mayor of SF (of gay marriage fame) was the conservative candidate there. I know liberal crazy.
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
-
So Sanders isn't suggesting randomly hiring 13 million people - he's suggesting that the country's infrastructure needs serious investment in order to remain competitive. This is a mainstream opinion held by almost every major analysis of the US infrastructure.
To me this is huge. Our country's infrastructure is literally falling apart.
That is mostly due to decades of misappropriation of highway tax funds at the state & local levels. Simply spending more on major infrastructure projects without dealing with the bidding system will lead to more graft, not necessarily improved infrastructure.
Exactly. There are few people who think we don't need improved infrastructure. The problem is trusting the government to do it efficiently and without graft.
You say that as if the government doesn't hire it out to private contractors already. If there's inefficiency and graft, it's either in the procurement process (which "small government" wouldn't really improve) or in the private industry itself.
Yes, I'm saying this. It's a ratio of both, but I believe that the procurement process is where most of the graft and loss can be located.
No, the real problem -- and I say this as an engineer who would tend be biased in favor of more infrastructure -- is that a lot of the infrastructure we've built in the past 50 years has been a gigantic mistake. It was never sustainable and was never going to become sustainable; we just apparently didn't realize it at the time.
The trouble is that when we allow suburban sprawl, we increase the amount of transportation infrastructure we need not proportionally to population, but beyond proportionally to it. When everybody lives in a city ("point A") it's easy for them to get where they need to go. When there are a few suburbs (points B, C, and D) and everybody commutes into the city then it's still relatively easy to accommodate their needs by building highways in a star topology.
Your argument for a city's transportation as a network complexity problem is accurate enough, but the issue I have with your analysis is that the causes for such complexity to arise in the first place were incrediblely complex themselves. Simply arguing against urban sprawl, as if that was actually something that anyone could control, as opposed to the results of economic forces at play during the age of cheap motor fuel. The problem that you cite is already self-correcting. A lot of younger adults prefer urban environments, in part, to avoid owning a private vehicle at all.
-
While it's true that our nationwide mess of a transportation network is complex, it is certainly not naturally occurring. Transportation and urban development have the most obscured signals of any major segment (transportation is about 1/6 of US economy) of the economy, other than healthcare, of course (also ~1/6). Other posters nailed the issue on zoning; it's commonly discriminatory (or at least designed to be) and negatively impacts development patterns to have houses spread far apart and to set up zoning for single-use, when mixed use (store under a residence) is such a vastly more productive configuration. The length of roadway per capita has increased tenfold in many cities and towns since the 1950s, and the maintenance on all that is a huge drag.
Not all city's or towns follow this pattern of zoning regulation. Houston, for example, does not. Does it not suffer from urban sprawl?
Then there's the issue that more of our expressways should probably be toll roads.
I agree with this point, but the solution isn't more urban planning to prevent more urban sprawl. That was my point to begin with, this is not something that can really be designed, we can only alter the incentives. The dominate perspective that roads should be paid for by taxes, as opposed to usage fees (tolls) is what led to what you are describing, and functionally subsidized urban sprawl by making communting by car appear more affordable than it would otherwise if every new driver was conditioned to expect that every extra mile is going to cost them more. MMM demonstrated quite well that short commute times are vastly cheaper, but the actual costs are well hidden inside infrastructure taxes and gas taxes. The average gallon of gasoline profits the oil industry 5 cents, but profits the government 33 cents (in my state). If, instead, those funds, intended for maintaince of the highways, were collected directly from drivers; we would feel the costs more and drive less, even though the actual costs to the average driver would be about the same. But, of course, that is going to be politically unpopular, for several reasons.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
No it is not. California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area. Multiple of my friends have guns. One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes. No problems there. Most democrats want reasonable restrictions. Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns. But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns. Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.
Definitely false equivalency. Nowhere near the same. Republican candidates run on the ability to appoint SCOTUS justices that will be very likely to vote to rollback or overturn access to abortion if they can get a majority. No Democrat is running on the ability to appoint people who are going to ban all guns or allow a state to ban all guns.
-
ETA having said that, it's very hard to reconcile the religious right position and my own on so many issues. It's a deal breaker, say for abortion, because it is clear that each restriction to abortion access is meant to be a step in a direction towards no choice at all.
Which is exactly the same thing that the left is trying to do with firearms. Do you honestly think that either of these issues will go anywhere in this generation? Of course not, they are both just issues to rile their respective bases; but at the same time, both sides have to honestly defend their side, lest the line actually move. It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France. The only way to end the stalemate would be to surrender.
No it is not. California is quite a liberal area especially the Bay Area. Multiple of my friends have guns. One of my friends has enough guns to fill two large gun safes. No problems there. Most democrats want reasonable restrictions. Yes, some have gotten so fed up with the refusal of any restriction that they have said no guns. But there is not a well planned (and executed) left wing plan to limit guns with specifically written legislation in multiple states to attempt to keep people from having guns. Trust me, if there was, Ca would one of the first states to try it.
Gin - The only republican I've heard talking about actual legislation to outlaw abortion lately is Huckabee.
With regard to guns, we have tons of laws on guns in this country already.
Some (not all) democrats don't want reasonable restrictions, they want more and more restrictions (than don't work) to make it difficult or impossible to own or use a firearm.
I can find you quote for every single one except maybe Trump. As well as the progression of laws designed to in effect make there not access even if it is legal.
Can you find me an example of those restrictions? I am not saying you can't find some extremists in the Dems. Not at all. We all have crazies. I mean, come on, Gavin Newson, the mayor of SF (of gay marriage fame) was the conservative candidate there. I know liberal crazy.
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Try this: I don't know why a requirement of training before you vote is horrible, you do it with a car. And I don't know why providing ID to vote is a bad thing, again cars have them.
The left claims those token requirements are intending to disenfranchise people. I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people. In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW. That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more. That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.
-
MMM demonstrated quite well that short commute times are vastly cheaper, but the actual costs are well hidden inside infrastructure taxes and gas taxes.
He does, but he usually does so by ignoring the difference in property costs, or comparing apples and oranges (apartments and houses) to skew the numbers in favor of his argument. I personally own two homes, one some 30 miles further from the metro center than the other. The further out one is better in every respect (newer, bigger, better finishes, more modern, blah blah blah) and has a current market value about $80k lower. That $80k pays for a shitload of commuting.
-
<snark>
It's as if politics were being debated in a manner similar to how the First World War was fought in France.
Oh, I see how it is: I make a WWII analogy and get attacked, yet this WWI analogy is okay! Damn Godwin and his anti-Two discrimination...!~
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
</snark>
-
I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people. In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW. That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more. That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.
Can't they open-carry without needing a permit?
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car.
There are training requirements. Although they vary significantly between states and types of firearm.
I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally.
They don't. Not legally, anyway.
And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them.
Again, records exist. They also vary by type of weapon. They just shouldn't be federal. There are very good historical reasons for that. You can accept them, or not, but a national firearm registry is not 'sensible legislation' to any gun owner with any real knowledge of history.
Every federally licensed gun dealer in the country is required by several laws to keep minimum records on every single weapon sold, pretty much forever, and those records must be accessible to ATF agents upon request. Not even a warrant is required.
My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Yes, that's personal responsibility. And yes, they are responsible for what happens to those guns, legally speaking. Even if they are stolen, the gun owner can be held criminally liable if they didn't take proper steps to keep them secure. For example, if I were to leave a handgun in my glove box and it got stolen, I could be charged with a crime similar to negligence if I left the car unlocked. If a child found it, and killed someone with it, I could be charged with 2nd degree murder by proxy.
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
If you have something those would not work, I am open to hearing it. But, I will say that you saying " driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right." is how you get otherwise reasonable people who would find with training as requirement saying fine. If you think that because of second amendment you don't even need to learn how to be safe (and keeping mine the domestic violence rates using guns) you get the "well fine, I'll work toward no guns". You do kind of have to do some give and take. And databases help on keeping the violent, crazies from legally getting guns. For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks. You should have heard the screaming about "taking away our guns" when people tried to change that. If you have to keep a record of who bought the gun, then it helps decrease selling under the table to avoid getting a background check.
But again, this an argument on what kind of restrictions if any there should be. Not if we should take take everyone's gun. Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering. Adding restriction for the OBs. When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally. I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent. And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the Dems.
-
I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people. In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW. That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more. That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.
Can't they open-carry without needing a permit?
Legally, yes. Practically, no. You stand a very high chance of being arrested for 'inciting a panic'.
-
I believe the left also wants to use training and licensing requirements to disarm people. In IL, we have to take a 16-hour class in order to receive a CCW. That costs a fair amount of money, usually $200 or more. That's a real roadblock for people looking to carry a weapon legally exercise their 2A rights.
Can't they open-carry without needing a permit?
Not in IL
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
This is bullshit, not worthly of a response. The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not. Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
If you have something those would not work, I am open to hearing it. But, I will say that you saying " driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right." is how you get otherwise reasonable people who would find with training as requirement saying fine. If you think that because of second amendment you don't even need to learn how to be safe (and keeping mine the domestic violence rates using guns) you get the "well fine, I'll work toward no guns". You do kind of have to do some give and take. And databases help on keeping the violent, crazies from legally getting guns. For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks. You should have heard the screaming about "taking away our guns" when people tried to change that. If you have to keep a record of who bought the gun, then it helps decrease selling under the table to avoid getting a background check.
But again, this an argument on what kind of restrictions if any there should be. Not if we should take take everyone's gun. Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering. Adding restriction for the OBs. When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally. I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent. And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the Dems.
Would that be like "outlawing guns for no functional reason except on the basis of 'looks scary'?"
I mean, fercrissakes, go load "shoulder thing that goes up" into your favorite search engine and report back. It's like you're TRYING to make this easy.
-
For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.
REally? Which state is that? Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan. Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.
-
Since we have swerved so far from the root topic, I might as well just leave this here...
http://www.a-human-right.com/
-
For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.
REally? Which state is that? Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan. Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.
According to wiki, at least three years ago it was not. Private sellers at gun shows are not required in many states, per federal law to background check.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
I don't know accurate wiki is and things may have changed since the men I knew were complaining that people were trying to change this. But, yes I think anyone who is trying to buy a gun needs a background check and training. Period. I don't want violent people buying gun they legally can't. I don't want people who don't know how to safely use a gun to own one. I was taken to shoot, by more than one person. That does not mean I am competent with a gun. And gun owners should be competent, IMO. But again, I am not fighting anyone on if guns should be legal, which is how this came up. Nor is it a main message from the Dem leadership. That is how it is different than abortion.
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
This is bullshit, not worthly of a response. The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not. Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?
Citation please. I've never heard that. And what about other races?
-
For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.
REally? Which state is that? Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan. Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.
According to wiki, at least three years ago it was not. Private sellers at gun shows are not required in many states, per federal law to background check.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
The per federal law part is what trips you up. This can't be a federal law, due to federal interference into internal state commerce. It pretty much has to be a state law. And they are. So what state are you in again, and when can you buy me that un-registered gun again?
-
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
If you have something those would not work, I am open to hearing it. But, I will say that you saying " driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right." is how you get otherwise reasonable people who would find with training as requirement saying fine. If you think that because of second amendment you don't even need to learn how to be safe (and keeping mine the domestic violence rates using guns) you get the "well fine, I'll work toward no guns". You do kind of have to do some give and take. And databases help on keeping the violent, crazies from legally getting guns. For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks. You should have heard the screaming about "taking away our guns" when people tried to change that. If you have to keep a record of who bought the gun, then it helps decrease selling under the table to avoid getting a background check.
But again, this an argument on what kind of restrictions if any there should be. Not if we should take take everyone's gun. Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering. Adding restriction for the OBs. When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally. I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent. And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the Dems.
Gin:
This was in the first paragraph of the referenced website:
"Tragically, our lax gun laws make it easier for abusers to acquire a firearm than it is to purchase a Sudafed."
That statement is complete horseshit. What is mom's demand action proposing? I see they don't want people that commit domestic violence to have guns although I'm not sure what that means and don't trust them when they make ridiculous claims like that.
Felons are prohibited from getting guns now. Who else would they like to prohibit?
-
But again, I am not fighting anyone on if guns should be legal, which is how this came up.
Oh, yeah, they'll be legal, but you just want to throw up barriers to ownership that make it impractical. Which is exactly what you're accusing the right of doing with abortions. "Oh yeah, go get one [gun, abortion]...if you can find one..."
Nor is it a main message from the Dem leadership. That is how it is different than abortion.
The fuck it isn't. The only reason it hasn't been a bigger push is because Dems know it is toxic politically. But let me tell you, the exact same fear you have that GOPers will stack the Supreme Court to ban abortions is the fear the GOPers have the Dems will do with the court on guns.
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
This is bullshit, not worthly of a response. The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not. Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?
Citation please. I've never heard that. And what about other races?
Here's the book...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
As for other races, off the top of my head I can't remember. I know that handgun ownership strongly favors young women and minoritys, and young black women particularly; so none of the other races are going to benefit as much. It's a published work, try to find it in your library. I wager you will learn much. Granted, this doesn't end the debate, as there are plenty of people who argue that Lott's conclusions are wrong, his method was flawed, etc. But no one has replicated the data and come up with another plausible cause.
-
For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.
REally? Which state is that? Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan. Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.
Georgia is at least one state. My friend bought a gun at a gun show with no ID.
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
This is bullshit, not worthly of a response. The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not. Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?
Citation please. I've never heard that. And what about other races?
Here's the book...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
As for other races, off the top of my head I can't remember. I know that handgun ownership strongly favors young women and minoritys, and young black women particularly; so none of the other races are going to benefit as much. It's a published work, try to find it in your library. I wager you will learn much. Granted, this doesn't end the debate, as there are plenty of people who argue that Lott's conclusions are wrong, his method was flawed, etc. But no one has replicated the data and come up with another plausible cause.
So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study. Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies? Am I misunderstanding? And btw, isn't there no funding for research into gun research from federal government? I thought I had heard that, because that would another reason for not replicating it. If you already saying people are complaining about his methodology and it is not a peer reviewed study (as you appear be saying), I am not sure the purpose of reading it. The methodology of any study is the most important part. If his methodology was so bad to not be publish (in peer reviewed journal) then the data is useless.
-
For example, gun shows were exempt in my state of backgrounds checks.
REally? Which state is that? Because I was pretty sure that the infamous "gun show loophole" has been a myth since Reagan. Feel free to prove me wrong, and citing the opinion of a hardcore anti-gun website doesn't count.
Georgia is at least one state. My friend bought a gun at a gun show with no ID.
On a federal level, private parties can sell at guns shows w/o a background check but dealers cannot.
-
I am saying the leadership culture is different and it is not a goal of the leadership. For example, I am pretty much as left as you can get and all I want is for violent, crazy or untrained people not to get guns. I don't know why a requirement of training is horrible, you do it with a car. I don't know why people with records of violence should get guns legally. And I don't know why records are bad thing, again cars have them. My brother has more guns than you can count, my best friend's little brother is a Seal, again with the guns. But they both know what they are doing. And they don't let little children get to them. Compare this to my ILs where the guns were laying unattended in the closet with three young children in residence. Given my daughter could climb up to them, so could the other three. Shouldn't the adults be liable if a kid gets the guns and shoots someone or themselves? Isn't that personal responsibility?
Nobody wants violent or crazy people to get guns. The difference is in how we get there.
For instance, if you make all medical records to make a decision then many people who need mental healthcare will avoid it.
With regard to violence, what you referring to? Felons can't have guns now.
On training, driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. In my state, concealed carry requires training and a permit. I think requiring some amount of training for concealed carry is a good thing but for ownership it steps on constitutional rights.
On records, we don't have a knife database. What's the purpose of a database? If someone wants an untraceable gun now, they buy it from a criminal and dispose of it. How does a database change that?
On locked up guns, guns should be secure but that means different things to different people. I'm not sure what the situation was or wasn't at your family. My guns are unloaded or locked up (or both). Ammo is separate from guns. I've also educated my children. How about mandatory gun safety education for kids? That would do a lot of good.
This is a nice summary of how violent people have guns and things could help at least in my opinion: http://momsdemandaction.org/domestic-gun-violence/
This is bullshit, not worthly of a response. The largest study on the topic of personal firearms ownership ever performed, More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott very effectively proved that a single black woman is about one-sixth as likely to be victim of a violent crime from anyone if she owned a handgun than the same woman who did not. Do you really hate blacks that much, or just women generally?
Citation please. I've never heard that. And what about other races?
Here's the book...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
As for other races, off the top of my head I can't remember. I know that handgun ownership strongly favors young women and minoritys, and young black women particularly; so none of the other races are going to benefit as much. It's a published work, try to find it in your library. I wager you will learn much. Granted, this doesn't end the debate, as there are plenty of people who argue that Lott's conclusions are wrong, his method was flawed, etc. But no one has replicated the data and come up with another plausible cause.
So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study. Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies? Am I misunderstanding? And btw, isn't there no funding for research into gun research from federal government? I thought I had heard that, because that would another reason for not replicating it. If you already saying people are complaining about his methodology and it is not a peer reviewed study (as you appear be saying), I am not sure the purpose of reading it. The methodology of any study is the most important part. If his methodology was so bad to not be publish (in peer reviewed journal) then the data is useless.
"The book expands on an earlier study published in 1997 by Lott and his co-author David Mustard in The Journal of Legal Studies.[1]"
-
Oh, yeah, they'll be legal, but you just want to throw up barriers to ownership that make it impractical. Which is exactly what you're accusing the right of doing with abortions. "Oh yeah, go get one [gun, abortion]...if you can find one..."
Perhaps certain regulations could be relaxed some, like that requirement to complete a background check within 3 days or whatever, but I hardly think that proper education and registration are meant to be barriers to make ownership impractical. I'm definitely not against gun ownership or use, but if someone is using something that is inherently a weapon, I would hope that he/she can properly handle it.
-
But again, I am not fighting anyone on if guns should be legal, which is how this came up.
Oh, yeah, they'll be legal, but you just want to throw up barriers to ownership that make it impractical. Which is exactly what you're accusing the right of doing with abortions. "Oh yeah, go get one [gun, abortion]...if you can find one..."
Nor is it a main message from the Dem leadership. That is how it is different than abortion.
The fuck it isn't. The only reason it hasn't been a bigger push is because Dems know it is toxic politically. But let me tell you, the exact same fear you have that GOPers will stack the Supreme Court to ban abortions is the fear the GOPers have the Dems will do with the court on guns.
Except that the GOP has done it already. They have passed laws in red states to try to limit access. In California (which I think is a liberal area) I have not seen this because I can I go buy a gun. I know multiple people with enough guns to arm small army in California. Granted some of the people would useless cause some of the guns are old and not as efficient as modern day one but even in California people have multiple guns and have no issue getting more.
I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed. Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws? Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun. Instead of getting angry, convince me. Keeping in mind that I am the kind of person you want to convince because I have no guns, I think the Dems position makes sense but have no issue with people with guns aka I don't think all gun owners are "gun nuts". In fact, I have been taken gun ranges. So, instead of being mad, convince me.
-
So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study. Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies? Am I misunderstanding?
Yes, you are misunderstanding. The book is the published summary of a huge set of peer review work. Literally the largest data set ever performed. It's specific to the United States, though, and doesn't really apply generally to other nations. It's not been replicated with a different conclusion mostly because the data set is so large, any other similar study would have to use the same data set, and the statistical relationships would remain the same. The greatest complaint about it from actual scientists is that the conclusion cannot be proven to be cause and effect, as it could be partially or completely corrolation; and that the use of econometrics could not ever be proof of causation. Said another way, no credible critic says that Lott is actually wrong, only that the association between the increase in firearms ownership cannot be proven to be the cause of the decrease in crime rates. There is no one that says that he made any statistical errors worthy of note, or that he failed to include any data that would have contradicted his conclusion. In fact, the original study was inspired and initially funded by an anti-gun institution; and John Lott was a liberal, at least on the gun control issue. His original sponsors pulled out of the project after it became obvious that the results were not going to be anything that they could support, and John Lott himself had to admit that the evidence affected his political perspectives.
-
So you are citing a book, not a published peer review study. Or does this book summarize/cite multiple studies? Am I misunderstanding?
Yes, you are misunderstanding. The book is the published summary of a huge set of peer review work. Literally the largest data set ever performed. It's specific to the United States, though, and doesn't really apply generally to other nations. It's not been replicated with a different conclusion mostly because the data set is so large, any other similar study would have to use the same data set, and the statistical relationships would remain the same. The greatest complaint about it from actual scientists is that the conclusion cannot be proven to be cause and effect, as it could be partially or completely corrolation; and that the use of econometrics could not ever be proof of causation. Said another way, no credible critic says that Lott is actually wrong, only that the association between the increase in firearms ownership cannot be proven to be the cause of the decrease in crime rates. There is no one that says that he made any statistical errors worthy of note, or that he failed to include any data that would have contradicted his conclusion. In fact, the original study was inspired and initially funded by an anti-gun institution; and John Lott was a liberal, at least on the gun control issue. His original sponsors pulled out of the project after it became obvious that the results were not going to be anything that they could support, and John Lott himself had to admit that the evidence affected his political perspectives.
Thank you for explaining that I misunderstood. I'll get the book then.
-
I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed. Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?
Yes, easy. There were dozens that closed in both Chicago & Detroit when guns were banned there. Following the so-called assualt weapons ban in the 1990's, at least six closed in the city I live in alone. That was the very (unoffical) purpose of Operation Chokepoint...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/05/gun-letter-informs-pawn-and-gun-shop-owner-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-video/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/store-owner-says-bank-accounts-closed-because-he-sells-guns/
http://www.teaparty.org/gun-letter-informs-pawn-gun-shop-owner-bank-accounts-closed-92916/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/08/florida-news-flash/suntrust-bank-closed-brooksville-shops-accounts-se/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Alright, now it's your turn. Show me a clinic that closed because of a zoning law passed by a Republican city council.
Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.
You pick a gun regulation that you think would be reasonable; I'll tell you why you are wrong, or tell you if it's already a law.
-
This might be helpful
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11846708_10153515111334267_4488955044231745627_n.jpg?oh=c38fb5bd7884b634790af134b7ec8eec&oe=563C5015)
-
I mean, fercrissakes, go load "shoulder thing that goes up" into your favorite search engine and report back. It's like you're TRYING to make this easy.
ShoulderThingThatGoesUp (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=12581) is forum member.
-
I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed. Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?
Yes, easy. There were dozens that closed in both Chicago & Detroit when guns were banned there. Following the so-called assualt weapons ban in the 1990's, at least six closed in the city I live in alone. That was the very (unoffical) purpose of Operation Chokepoint...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/05/gun-letter-informs-pawn-and-gun-shop-owner-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-video/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/store-owner-says-bank-accounts-closed-because-he-sells-guns/
http://www.teaparty.org/gun-letter-informs-pawn-gun-shop-owner-bank-accounts-closed-92916/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/08/florida-news-flash/suntrust-bank-closed-brooksville-shops-accounts-se/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Alright, now it's your turn. Show me a clinic that closed because of a zoning law passed by a Republican city council.
Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.
You pick a gun regulation that you think would be reasonable; I'll tell you why you are wrong, or tell you if it's already a law.
A city counsel? Try multiple state legislatures, they are called TRAP laws are in more than 27 states. They are not zoning laws, they are directed specifically at forcing abortion clinics to do remodeling they can't afford, etc. Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, and so forth. A city zoning law would be easier to deal with but again, I never mentioned zoning laws. I actually am trying to get information from you, but if you just want to try to make straw men, I can bow out.
But, seriously your links don't show what you are accusing, at least the not biased one is not:
Actually, the bank decided recently to end relationships with pawn shops, payday lenders and check cashers, but it will still work with firearms dealers. The FDIC has warned banks to examine relationships with customers that use third-party payment processors, because of the risk of consumer fraud, and a federal program called Operation Choke Point has investigated the same issue. Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.
-
I still can't see how anyone can equate gun control on the left with abortion restrictions on the right.
Guns - The intent is to limit who can get what guns. Nobody is trying to outlaw all guns. No gun control groups are opposed to gun ownership. No Presidential candidates are running on a position to outlaw guns.
Abortion - The intent is to end abortion. Period. Multiple groups on the right make this clear. Multiple Presidential candidates are openly opposed to ALL abortions. In the last debate Huckabee announced that he would use the national guard to shut down abortion clinics.
Now, how can anyone claim that these two issues are equivalent? They may be similar, but the gun control proponents are nowhere near as radical as the abortion opponents and anyone arguing otherwise is basing it not on facts, but paranoia.
-
I can point to multiple laws that limit access, where clinics were closed. Can you show me one gun dealer that closed because of gun laws?
Yes, easy. There were dozens that closed in both Chicago & Detroit when guns were banned there. Following the so-called assualt weapons ban in the 1990's, at least six closed in the city I live in alone. That was the very (unoffical) purpose of Operation Chokepoint...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/05/gun-letter-informs-pawn-and-gun-shop-owner-his-bank-accounts-are-being-closed-video/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/06/store-owner-says-bank-accounts-closed-because-he-sells-guns/
http://www.teaparty.org/gun-letter-informs-pawn-gun-shop-owner-bank-accounts-closed-92916/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/apr/08/florida-news-flash/suntrust-bank-closed-brooksville-shops-accounts-se/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Alright, now it's your turn. Show me a clinic that closed because of a zoning law passed by a Republican city council.
Or explain to me, how some of these laws would infringe on you getting a gun.
You pick a gun regulation that you think would be reasonable; I'll tell you why you are wrong, or tell you if it's already a law.
A city counsel? Try multiple state legislatures, they are called TRAP laws are in more than 27 states. They are not zoning laws, they are directed specifically at forcing abortion clinics to do remodeling they can't afford, etc. Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, and so forth. A city zoning law would be easier to deal with but again, I never mentioned zoning laws. I actually am trying to get information from you, but if you just want to try to make straw men, I can bow out.
But, seriously your links don't show what you are accusing, at least the not biased one is not:
Actually, the bank decided recently to end relationships with pawn shops, payday lenders and check cashiers, but it will still work with firearms dealers. The FDIC has warned banks to examine relationships with customers that use third-party payment processors, because of the risk of consumer fraud, and a federal program called Operation Choke Point has investigated the same issue. Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.
Yeah, this seemed like a layup. Texas passed a series of laws specifically targeting clinics that provide abortions with inane regulation that caused 23 of the states 41 clinics to close. Half of the 18 that remained open are under duress from the most recent round of useless legislation and are only open thanks to a stay from the US supreme court.
Texas republicans are a funny bunch. "Government needs to get out of the way of business and out of peoples lives, unless their hallways are too small or they want to buy a beer at 11:30 on Sunday, then they can go straight to hell."
-
Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.
Strange how that works. Never believe a rumor until it's been officially denied.
And when I asked you to show me abortion clinics that have been shut down by local regulations, I specified that because IIRC zoning laws were mentioned higher up this thread, not necessarily by yourself. And that is what I want to see, just showing me some law that openly targets abortion clinics isn't an equal malice, because it doesn't show that those republicans are willing to do so in secret. I don't care if Texas want's to openly restrict abortion clinics, because they do so for political gain. Show me the true believers who are so opposed to abortion, and that know that it's so politically popular among their electorate, that they are both willing and inclined to do so in the dark. That is what the gun-grabbers among the left will do, because they know that whenever they do it in the open, they end up losing in the long run. There have been proposals to enlist doctors to ask if patients own guns, as a sign of mental illness. Another idea was to tax the manufacture of ammunition so high as to make it unaffordable, under the idea that the 2nd doesn't mention ammunition. Still another was the idea of suing gun manufacturers over criminal acts performed by people who legally could buy their product at the time, in order to drive up the liability costs of gun manufacturing so high that the costs of insurance alone would force up the price of guns so that no one but governments could afford them anyway, which was actually attempted in court several times. And there was another idea that deliberately increased the cost of buying certain types of firearms, by simply adding a huge tax upon their sale or transfer. That last one became the National Firearms Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
-
Gun rights advocates have argued that Operation Choke Point is a backdoor way of targeting gun shops, but the government denies there’s any such plan to target gun dealers, and no one has been able to truly prove otherwise.
Strange how that works. Never believe a rumor until it's been officially denied.
And when I asked you to show me abortion clinics that have been shut down by local regulations, I specified that because IIRC zoning laws were mentioned higher up this thread, not necessarily by yourself. And that is what I want to see, just showing me some law that openly targets abortion clinics isn't an equal malice, because it doesn't show that those republicans are willing to do so in secret. I don't care if Texas want's to openly restrict abortion clinics, because they do so for political gain. Show me the true believers who are so opposed to abortion, and that know that it's so politically popular among their electorate, that they are both willing and inclined to do so in the dark. That is what the gun-grabrrbers among the left will do, because they know that whenever they do it in the open, they end up losing in the long run. There have been proposals to enlist doctors to ask if patients own guns, as a sign of mental illness. Another idea was to tax the manufacture of ammunition so high as to make it unaffordable, under the idea that the 2nd doesn't mention ammunition. Still another was the idea of suing gun manufacturers over criminal acts performed by people who legally could buy their product at the time, in order to drive up the liability costs of gun manufacturing so high that the costs of insurance alone would force up the price of guns so that no one but governments could afford them anyway, which was actually attempted in court several times. And there was another idea that deliberately increased the cost of buying certain types of firearms, by simply adding a huge tax upon their sale or transfer. That last one became the National Firearms Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
You don't remember correctly. I stated "Which is different than passing laws specifically to avoid constitutional challenge yet still remove access to abortions: for example changing building codes for abortion clinics with no reason and refusing grandfathering. Adding restriction for the OBs. When you have state which have one clinic for miles and it was done with a series of law, it was done internationally. I don't care if you have your gun, unless you are violent. And frankly that is majority (and the leadership) of the
Which was in reference to the TRAP laws. Changing the codes for building housing abortion clinics. You may have misunderstood but then ask. You are lashing out, using biased and some flat out incorrect statements.
-
You are lashing out, using biased and some flat out incorrect statements.
Nonsense, I'm not lashing out. I'm not even upset. I'm not the emotional type, and certainly don't get upset over someone's opinions on the Internet. I'd be mad all the time, and I honestly don't know how some people maintain that.
As for biased and incorrect, while I may be incorrect occasionally, I never claimed to be unbiased. I have a bias, and I am quite open about it.
-
This might be helpful
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11846708_10153515111334267_4488955044231745627_n.jpg?oh=c38fb5bd7884b634790af134b7ec8eec&oe=563C5015)
I'm surprised that the two circles are of equal size ;-)
-
I think John Kasich should be added to the poll if possible.
-
I think John Kasich should be added to the poll if possible.
Yes I agree 100%, although it would be too late for the voters. Perhaps we should renew this thread at some point.
I have a feeling Bernie's numbers would go even higher now that Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
Please lets add a few more dems as well.
As mentioned somewhere the Democrats are supposedly the party of the young and diverse. So why are they running 2 old white folks from the 1940s? I realize one has a vagina but most women will not vote for her. These candidates cannot excite the young diverse base.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
I don't think she's a traitor. She may, however, have been criminally negligent with regard to these e-mails.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
Oh, we were there, we just didn't have as broad a platform as Hillary's detractors do right now. Also, with both the Plame incident & Iran-Contra, the violations were rooted in the administration itself; for which the President could pardon anyone (and did) for any of it. So there was no possibility of an actual court case. For whatever reason, Obama seems to have decided to let Hillary twist in the wind.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
Oh, we were there, we just didn't have as broad a platform as Hillary's detractors do right now. Also, with both the Plame incident & Iran-Contra, the violations were rooted in the administration itself; for which the President could pardon anyone (and did) for any of it. So there was no possibility of an actual court case. For whatever reason, Obama seems to have decided to let Hillary twist in the wind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he can pardon someone unless they are convicted.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
Oh, we were there, we just didn't have as broad a platform as Hillary's detractors do right now. Also, with both the Plame incident & Iran-Contra, the violations were rooted in the administration itself; for which the President could pardon anyone (and did) for any of it. So there was no possibility of an actual court case. For whatever reason, Obama seems to have decided to let Hillary twist in the wind.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he can pardon someone unless they are convicted.
Nope, the president can pardon someone prior to a conviction, or even a specific crime being detailed. It's actually a common practice for a departing president to pardon his entire cabinet without specifics, and the new president to immediately pardon that leaving president. This protects the cabinet members from malicious or politically motivated prosecutions down the line. Obama could pardon Hillary for anything, including for stupid stuff, that she did while SoS. Of course, he could also wait and see how it all plays out.
-
Nope, the president can pardon someone prior to a conviction, or even a specific crime being detailed. It's actually a common practice for a departing president to pardon his entire cabinet without specifics, and the new president to immediately pardon that leaving president. This protects the cabinet members from malicious or politically motivated prosecutions down the line. Obama could pardon Hillary for anything, including for stupid stuff, that she did while SoS. Of course, he could also wait and see how it all plays out.
I stand corrected. Can't imagine the optics of pardoning her at this point would help her campaign, but who knows.
-
Nope, the president can pardon someone prior to a conviction, or even a specific crime being detailed. It's actually a common practice for a departing president to pardon his entire cabinet without specifics, and the new president to immediately pardon that leaving president. This protects the cabinet members from malicious or politically motivated prosecutions down the line. Obama could pardon Hillary for anything, including for stupid stuff, that she did while SoS. Of course, he could also wait and see how it all plays out.
I stand corrected. Can't imagine the optics of pardoning her at this point would help her campaign, but who knows.
Did not know that! Oh the benefits of the political class.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
I don't think she's a traitor. She may, however, have been criminally negligent with regard to these e-mails.
I think she should be prosecuted for any crimes she committed by sending or receiving emails. Just as soon as Bush/Cheney are prosecuted for ordering a bunch of people to be tortured as many as 186 times.
-
Just as soon as Bush/Cheney are prosecuted for ordering a bunch of people to be tortured as many as 186 times.
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
-
Hillary has pretty much obstructed justice of a serious federal investigation and is possibly treasonous. She may not make it to the primary if she is charged as any other government employee would be.
I don't really understand all this chatter about Hillary being a traitor. She hasn't done anything half as bad as Cheney or Reagan (or Nixon, for that matter, and I'm not even talking about Watergate.).
Where were all these people so concerned about security protocols when Valerie Plame was outed, or during Iran-Contra? It stinks of politics, not valid critique.
I don't think she's a traitor. She may, however, have been criminally negligent with regard to these e-mails.
I think she should be prosecuted for any crimes she committed by sending or receiving emails. Just as soon as Bush/Cheney are prosecuted for ordering a bunch of people to be tortured as many as 186 times.
Unfortunately, Obama already pardoned Bush, so that won't work.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
I don't disagree, but neither my opinion nor, for that matter, the opinions of the would-be victims of a potential preventable nuclear explosion, carry any more weight than anyone else's in answering the question of the moral or legal acceptability of using torture / enhanced interrogation techniques. If anything, in the latter case, they carry less. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no anti-torture advocates among would-be victims of terrorism.
-
Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no anti-torture advocates among would-be victims of terrorism.
Well said.
-
I don't disagree, but neither my opinion nor, for that matter, the opinions of the would-be victims of a potential preventable nuclear explosion, carry any more weight than anyone else's in answering the question of the ... legal acceptability of using torture / enhanced interrogation techniques. ...
Today I happened to read Voices for Choices v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 339 F3d 542 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=339+F.3d+542&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&case=17210280610563271267&scilh=0) (7th Cir 2003) (Posner J, in chambers), which contains some vaguely relevant discussion. In the opinion, Judge Posner denies leave to file a proposed amicus brief on the grounds that it would add nothing to the case other than telling him the views of the author of the brief, and that is irrelevant because "[t]he judicial process ... is not democratic in the sense of basing decision on the voting ... of constituents and interest groups. [...] Essentially, the proposed amicus briefs merely announce the 'vote' of the amici on the decision of the appeal. But, as I have been at pains to emphasize ..., they have no vote". In other words, legal questions (including the legality of an alleged method of torture) are not decided by surveying all of the various special interest groups; they are decided based on the law.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
I don't disagree, but neither my opinion nor, for that matter, the opinions of the would-be victims of a potential preventable nuclear explosion, carry any more weight than anyone else's in answering the question of the moral or legal acceptability of using torture / enhanced interrogation techniques. If anything, in the latter case, they carry less. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, perhaps there are no anti-torture advocates among would-be victims of terrorism.
That might be a fair argument, but since we know that those who are actually tortured will eventually tell their attacker whatever they think will get them to stop, such techniques are useless unless we know that we have the right guy. Considering that we also now know that about one-quarter of the inmates at Guantanmo Bay were simple victims of false accusations, often by neighbors who had a grudge or were expecting a cash award, I can't see how we can assume that those who were tortured actually ever knew anything useful. And they might not have known anything useful even if they were true 'collaborators'. The typical grunt in our Army has no working knowledge of the general's battle plan either.
And even if none of that matters, torture of prisoners of war is un-American.
-
legal questions (including the legality of an alleged method of torture) are not decided by surveying all of the various special interest groups; they are decided based on the law.
Presumably, "the law" is decided and enacted by people who were voted into office, with some time lag between the voting and the legislating. From that perspective, it is ultimately popular opinion that determines legality and denying it in order to adhere to a law that is inevitably changing is just deliberate stalling. The recent shift on gay marriage being a relevant example wherein popular opinion effectively changed the law, despite many people attempting to use old laws to stifle the progress.
-
And even if none of that matters, torture of prisoners of war is un-American.
This opinion I don't understand. Torture is an official part of American foreign policy. America has an official state apparatus devoted to torture, including specialized facilities and staff and training programs and legal defense teams. America is now world famous for state officers taking denigrating pictures of torture victims. America may not torture more than some other countries, but we do so much more publicly, proudly, and unrepentantly than anyone else.
So despite popular opinion, torture is VERY American.
-
legal questions (including the legality of an alleged method of torture) are not decided by surveying all of the various special interest groups; they are decided based on the law.
Presumably, "the law" is decided and enacted by people who were voted into office, with some time lab between the voting and the legislating. From that perspective, it is ultimately popular opinion that determines legality and denying it in order to adhere to a law that is inevitably changing is just deliberate stalling. ...
The specific question of whether any particular persons are guilty of any crimes as a result of alleged torture programs that took place in the past is not a question that can be resolved through legislation at this juncture. For that proposition, I refer you to Art I, §§ 9-10 of the US Constitution, and in particular the ex post facto clauses contained within. That's what was being discussed in the chain I quoted. (Specifically, it was alleged (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/msg767511/#msg767511) that George W. Bush and/or Dick Cheney may be guilty of unspecified offenses for things they did in the past. MDM then replied (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/msg767520/#msg767520) with his suggestion that victims of terrorist attacks might be sympathetic to the alleged torture programs. brooklynguy then replied (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/msg767549/#msg767549) to that, and I ultimately joined in to the thread soon thereafter.)
-
And even if none of that matters, torture of prisoners of war is un-American.
This opinion I don't understand. Torture is an official part of American foreign policy. America has an official state apparatus devoted to torture, including specialized facilities and staff and training programs and legal defense teams. America is now world famous for state officers taking denigrating pictures of torture victims. America may not torture more than some other countries, but we do so much more publicly, proudly, and unrepentantly than anyone else.
So despite popular opinion, torture is VERY American.
Only relatively recently. We most certainly did not officially condone such tactics during the first or second world wars. There may have been instances wherein it happened anyway, but it certainly was against our policies toward prisoners of war, and we still have prohibitions upon the poor treatment of such PoW's. Bush & Co dodged those laws because they would never acknowledge that they were PoW's, a leap of logic that I could never wrap my head around. They seemed to be arguing that acts of terrorism were not acts of war, so the inmates were not PoW's; but nor were they acts of crime, for which our other laws required prosecution and a due process. It was basicly an internment camp. While I know that the US has failed to maintain it's own standards on many occasions in the past (including some of my own ancestors), we have typically come to be ashamed of those failures, not argue for their legality in a federal court. What the federal government does in our name often reflects poorly on the character of "we the people", but we have never openly condoned such actions when the details were known before the Bush/Cheney era.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
We do know that innocent people (at least 150 of them) were held and tortured in US prison camps. I have yet to hear an argument for this practice that anyone has claimed is morally acceptable.
-
That might be a fair argument, but since we know that those who are actually tortured will eventually tell their attacker whatever they think will get them to stop, such techniques are useless unless we know that we have the right guy.
The only argument I made was that one's relationship to the actual victims of past terrorist attacks or to the would-be victims of potential future terrorist attacks has no relevance towards the question of the morality (or legality) of the use of torture in terrorism-prevention efforts.
In an alternate version of the trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem), there can be little doubt that it would be immoral to flip a switch to send a train car full of innocent passengers to their deaths in order to save the life of a single person tied up on the tracks. Nevertheless, if it were my children on the tracks, I would probably flip the switch; while my relationship to the victims may make that action more understandable, it would not make it any less immoral.
Similarly, the fact that I lost my father on 9/11 does not make my opinion on the use of state-sponsored torture any more relevant that it otherwise would be. For the record, I believe our country's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" constituted torture that was both morally and legally unacceptable. That said, if I were faced with a situation where I truly believed the torturing of a detainee would save the lives of my children, I probably wouldn't hesitate to torture him myself. Every would-be potential terrorism victim is somebody's child, but as a nation and a society, we should not do what we would do, we should do what we should do.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
"morality" is not equivalent to "legality". Whether torture is moral or not, my understanding is that it is very clearly against US (and international) law. Morality (or certain people's opinions about what constitutes morality) is not a "get out of jail free" card. Waterboarding has historically been called torture by our own government. Both the Senate and Obama have reported that we tortured people. This really isn't an open question. Both Bush and Cheney refrain from traveling abroad. Perhaps because of fears that other countries have more respect for the rule of law as pertains to the powerful than does ours.
there are no atheists in foxholes
I disagree.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
There is, however, a sharp demarcation between what's allowed under the Geneva Convention and what is criminal behavior!
The people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have been martyrs for the cause of freedom, except for the fact that we shat upon their legacy by abandoning our ideals. We let the terrorists win.
-
One might understand anyone who lost someone in the Trade Center attack (or other terrorist activity) having no problem with a very wide interpretation of "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The opinions of people who lost loved ones in terrorist attacks have no special significance towards the question of the acceptability of state-sponsored torture (and I say that as someone who lost a loved one in the Trade Center attack).
We'll likely never know how many (zero to ?) further deaths have been prevented by interrogations at Guantanamo or other locations. And there is no sharp demarcation in the spectrum from torturing people for a jaywalking confession to enhanced interrogation preventing a large nuclear explosion in the Barclays Center. Gray areas, and reasonable people can reach different conclusions on what is morally acceptable.
There is, however, a sharp demarcation between what's allowed under the Geneva Convention and what is criminal behavior!
The people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have been martyrs for the cause of freedom, except for the fact that we shat upon their legacy by abandoning our ideals. We let the terrorists win.
I agree.
-
There is, however, a sharp demarcation between what's allowed under the Geneva Convention and what is criminal behavior!
Perhaps a study of the Geneva Convention would find otherwise, but the guess here is that flying planes into buildings, both full of innocent people, is not allowed there. And yes, "two wrongs don't make a right,"
The people who died in the 9/11 attacks would have been martyrs for the cause of freedom, except for the fact that we shat upon their legacy by abandoning our ideals. We let the terrorists win.
There are different definitions of winning. One can make the case that being a live pragmatist is better than being a dead idealist, but there are also different ways to measure "better."
On another note: brooklynguy, very sorry for the loss of your father. I lost a good friend, but that's not nearly the same.
-
there are no atheists in foxholes
I disagree.
I would add that a reasoned consideration of a world in which lots of people end up in foxholes might be a good motivation to be an atheist.
-
On another note: brooklynguy, very sorry for the loss of your father. I lost a good friend, but that's not nearly the same.
Thank you. I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.
One can make the case that being a live pragmatist is better than being a dead idealist, but there are also different ways to measure "better."
Using the dictionary definition I found that seems most pertinent to this discussion,
better:
2. morally superior; more virtuous
I think most people would agree that being a dead idealist is better than being a live pragmatist, but if push came to shove I think most of us would probably still personally choose to be the latter over the former. Self-preservation and loved-one-preservation are powerful motivating forces, capable of overriding the moralistic integrity of some of the staunchest idealists. It's easy to claim that your atheism will never waver, but until you're actually in a foxhole you can't know for sure.
-
The atheist/foxhole argument is that religion's pull is strongest when you're in a terrified state of panic and not thinking clearly . . . which I suspect most atheists would be OK with.
-
To clarify, I only used the "no atheists in foxholes" expression because it was a convenient aphorism for the idea I was trying to express (namely, that it's easy to adopt a position in the abstract but either abandon or violate it in times of extreme crisis). I don't necessarily believe in a strong version of that aphorism (i.e., I don't believe that literally no one who is faced with the strong possibility of death continues to disbelieve in a higher power), but I do think there is some truth in a weaker version of that aphorism (i.e., I think it's likely that many people who operate strictly according to logic and reason and do not believe in a higher power may nevertheless find themselves praying to one to spare their life if faced with death even while continuing to believe that such prayers are futile because they know that magic does not actually exist).
Anyway, I didn't mean to lead this off topic discussion about the morality of torture into the further off topic territory of religion.
-
Back to the Presidential Candidate discussion ---
Now that Hillary is becoming increasingly damaged goods who else may jump in other than Biden, Gore and the usual suspects?
The Iowa early poll now shows Trump with a significant lead and Scott what's his name falling from 1st to 3rd. 2nd place is Ben Carson. I'm at least relieved that the race is being lead by a man who appears to have little interest in gays, god, or fundamental religion. (I don't know that for a fact as I'm not really following Trump too closely and he hasn't published a platform.)
I'm guessing Fox is hoping for a Trump victory at this point as they have realized that a Trump vs. any Democrat will lead to the best election ratings ever for them. So yeah, Fox is now officially backing Trump by giving Megyn Kelly 10 days off to reconsider her ways.
Wish we were hearing more on Kasich.
-
Now that it's clear you Americans are crazy enough to actually vote him in, I'd like to officially take back my comedic endorsement of Trump and apologize.
-
I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are. Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are. It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists. I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.
-
I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are. Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are. It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists. I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.
The bad things other people are absolutely no justification for the bad things we do. Period. If they are bad we should follow our laws and process to bring them to justice. If we don't do that, then we make ourselves to be bad guys too. Why do that? There is no reason to violate our own principles in the process. It actually endangers us more to cede the moral highground. We recruited so many enemies and lost so many friends by the egregious way we treated people--many of whom were completely innocent. Even today we hold many people at Guantanamo that the government has admitted are innocent. Is that the kind of country you want to be? What if that were you? I would feel just terrible if you were locked up and tortured for over a decade for something you didn't do. I imagine you'd feel even worse about that.
In our system of law-based justice, we follow pre-established processes and try people. Let the evidence speak for itself. When we deviate from that we become less.
We also have a routine practice of extra-judicial killings that Obama has continued. He and his staff are judge, jury, and executioner. They decide, without any oversight from independent jurists, who to kill, and execute them (and people who happen to be around them, or the people they mistakenly thought were them)--even American citizens. Why aren't conservatives like yourself outraged about this unchecked governmental power being exercised in secrecy?
-
I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are. Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are. It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists. I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.
Yeah. 'Simulated'. Three men were tortured to death in Guantanamo Bay by Americans. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/guantanamo-bay-sergeant-claims-cia-tortured-3-men-death-article-1.2082610)
It's OK, because they were suspected terrorists. Well, not the two of them that were cleared for release . . . I guess they weren't actually terrorists because they were being released. Oops. Well, it's cool because those guys were at one point suspected of being a terrorist. And that's pretty damning right?
"It did not matter if a detainee were innocent. Indeed, because he lived in Afghanistan and was captured on or near the battle area, he must know something of importance," Wilkerson wrote in the blog.
He said intelligence analysts hoped to gather "sufficient information about a village, a region, or a group of individuals, that dots could be connected and terrorists or their plots could be identified."
Oh wait. So many of these guys had nothing to do with the terrorism? Oopsies again. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/most-guantanamo-detainees-are-innocent-ex-bush-official-1.804550)
The US has been killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians via air strike in Afghanistan since 2001.
Please, get over the jingoism and flag waving. The US has decided to behave like terrorists. You shouldn't get upset when someone points that out.
-
I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are. Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are. It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists. I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.
Here's what this says to me: "Those guys are awful, wretched, monstrous dicks. So we should treat them just as badly as they treat each other (which makes them awful, wretched, monstrous dicks) because we are righteous and good."
-
I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are. Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are. It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists. I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.
Here's what this says to me: "Those guys are awful, wretched, monstrous dicks. So we should treat them just as badly as they treat each other (which makes them awful, wretched, monstrous dicks) because we are righteous and good."
No, but we're better than them because we have good intentions. And they started it!
-
I realize I'm an insensitive right-wing asshole (though I have served, so not a chickenhawk) but I will simply never understand how one can look at the atrocities committed "on the other side" towards us and towards their own people and then look at us and think how terrible we are. Guys, we simulate drowning on people we think are helping plot against us, they ACTUALLY drown people for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation, or even just supporters of those who are. It is unfathomable to me how someone can be for gay rights or women's rights and then criticize what was done to suspected terrorists. I get it, two different issues, both groups can be wrong, but man..fuck.
I served also, and my point is that in the past, America didn't compare itself to other nations and say "well, they were worse!". America really was the shining city on the hill for quite a long time. We established the ideals of how a representative republic should act, and we were embarrassed when our leaders failed to maintain such standards of moral action. Similar to how the British expect the royal family to represent the highest order of civilization, and are disappointed when they fail; America has long held our publicly elected & appointed leadership to a higher moral & legal standard. A recently as the 90's, we came surprising close to impeaching a sitting president for adultry; and several federal and state congressmen have had their political careers destroyed for acts of hypocrisy, on both sides of the isle. Just off the top of my head, I remember a Republican congressman who supported the Defense of Marriage Act who was caught in a police sting soliciting gay prostitution as well as a Democrat Congressperson (in California, IIRC) that was a hardcore gun-banner who was busted by the state department for gun running.
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
-
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?
Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why. Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not. The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes. The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.
In these two cases, more regulation of one thing makes the world a better place and more regulation of the other makes the world a worse place. You can't pick a position that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.
-
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Wait. You are comparing voting with the ability to purchase a literal lethal weapon? No part of this is a valid comparison. That is like saying an Orca is like a hamster because they are both animals.
-
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?
Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why. Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not. The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes. The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.
In these two cases, more regulation of one thing makes the world a better place and more regulation of the other makes the world a worse place. You can't pick a position that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.
"Democrats want to make the world a better place." I don't need to read any further. I'm sure Hillary Clinton is only in this race to try to make "the world" a better place.
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
I remember seeing someone mention that exact comparison somewhere on this forum, but it may have been another thread.
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
What I don't understand is why is it that so many people hear liberals cry about 'sensible gun restrictions' when most of what they actually ask for are laws in the majority of states? Gun owners already do have to present an ID whenever buying a gun from any federally licensed dealer, which is all of them; and firearms training is socially expected and common even in the few states that don't actually mandate minimum training requirements. Every federal firearms dealers are legally bound to keep their sales records forever, so registration actually exists, it's just not centralized; so whenever a firearm is used in a crime, the ATF & FBI can track down it's last known owner rather efficiently. And anyone who buys a firearm without learning how to use it, or buys one for their kids without teaching them how to handle it, is a mouth-breathing moron who is bound to legitimately earn the Darwin award in some fashion eventually. There are dozens of privately funded training programs that go beyond the level of training that most military personnel get in basic training. Appleseed is one, (http://appleseedinfo.org/) and 4H is another, (http://4-hshootingsports.org/) both of those programs are nationwide, and there are many more that are local or regional. To most of the liberals who honestly don't wish to ban guns, but just want to see laws designed to prevent the mentally deficient or criminal element from getting firearms; those laws already exist. Most of them are quite well crafted, and gun owners understand why they exist and are willing to put up with the rational ones; but no law is going to prevent all criminals from getting guns. They can't even keep drugs out of prisons, for cristsakes! The laws proposed by liberals who don't understand guns or gun owners are burdensome, ineffective and often counterproductive to their own stated ends. Please, educate yourselves on the topic before you support more of this 'common sense legistlation' that you keep hearing about.
-
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?
One can also ask the similar question: "Why is it that Republicans are for voting ID cards but against tightening down gun laws significantly?"
Both sides pretty much use these as scare tactics. Democrats wave the "they're trying to take your vote away" flag, while Republicans wave the "they're trying to take your guns away" flag.
On the flip side, some Republicans are legitimately concerned about voter fraud and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a voter ID is not onerous. And some Democrats are legitimately concerned about illegal gun ownership and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a gun owner ID is not onerous.
-
"Democrats want to make the world a better place." I don't need to read any further.
Then you're missing out. I think it was clear that I wasn't using"democrat" to refer to politicians, but to people who favor gun licensing and oppose voter ID laws because those positions make America better. If you take a step back from the preconceived notions implied by the labels, sometimes people have interesting things to say about specific issues.
-
"Democrats want to make the world a better place." I don't need to read any further.
Then you're missing out. I think it was clear that I wasn't using"democrat" to refer to politicians, but to people who favor gun licensing and oppose voter ID laws because those positions make America better. If you take a step back from the preconceived notions implied by the labels, sometimes people have interesting things to say about specific issues.
If there is a clear registry, and more gun laws, then assuming there is ever a ban on handguns(similar to what Bernie Sanders would like), non-hunting rifles, or any type of gun, the fear is that they know who have them and go try to take them away from those people. We have the right to bear arms, this right isn't to allow us to hunt, it's there to allow us to defend ourselves and will not be taken away.
-
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?
Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why. Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not.
Honestly, how would you know?
The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes.
And said paper trail exists.
The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.
And why don't they? Shouldn't legal ID's be taxpayer funded? Once upon a time, a person's Social Security card was considered legal id. When that changed, there should have been a push to provide the poor the photo ID's that modern society requires. You can't open a savings account without a photo ID. If Voter ID's laws actually passed, then voter registration drives would just start including the "get them down to the county clerk's office for an ID" step as part of the drive. The comparison may have it's faults, but do you really believe that voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and minorities? Did you have to take a Jim Crow test for your last photo ID? It's not like we are asking for a freaking passport! We are just asking for a piece of plastic with your picture and name on it. The same piece of plastic that anyone typically has to produce when writing a check or using a credit card! Hell, even a cash advance joint requires a photo ID, and they seem to get way too many poor clients who managed to get an ID.
-
Gun owners already do have to present an ID whenever buying a gun from any federally licensed dealer
Any idea how many firearms are transacted outside of federally licensed dealers? Anecdotally, I legally own several firearms and have never set foot in a dealer or filled out any paperwork at all. I'm a liberal who wants that "common sense legislation" to include actually registering all firearm transactions, instead of the paper thin excuse for licensing we have now.
If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me. They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around. Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.
-
The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.
And why don't they? Shouldn't legal ID's be taxpayer funded? Once upon a time, a person's Social Security card was considered legal id. When that changed, there should have been a push to provide the poor the photo ID's that modern society requires. You can't open a savings account without a photo ID. If Voter ID's laws actually passed, then voter registration drives would just start including the "get them down to the county clerk's office for an ID" step as part of the drive. The comparison may have it's faults, but do you really believe that voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and minorities? Did you have to take a Jim Crow test for your last photo ID? It's not like we are asking for a freaking passport! We are just asking for a piece of plastic with your picture and name on it. The same piece of plastic that anyone typically has to produce when writing a check or using a credit card! Hell, even a cash advance joint requires a photo ID, and they seem to get way too many poor clients who managed to get an ID.
If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them. But those provisions just aren't included.
I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.
-
If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me. They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around. Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.
I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited. The ghost gun thing is an issue, but one without a real legislative solution, since guns are simple tech and there are way too many people with the skills & technology to make them. The inherited guns thing actually is traceble by police. Also, don't assume that the FBI can't figure out that you have weapons registered to dead people. Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.
Like I said, the system is not foolproof, but a nationwide registry is not the answer, because it will not solve the problem and it will create other problems.
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
Because of actual facts. Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence. But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Now, compare that to voter fraud. Do we have an issue with voter fraud? No. We have an issue with voter suppression via some of the laws in which the GOP pretending will limit vote fraud but no actual issue with it. So, which should elected officials care about? Mmmm, hard question. Sarcasm if you did not get it.
-
If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me. They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around. Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.
I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited. The ghost gun thing is an issue, but one without a real legislative solution, since guns are simple tech and there are way too many people with the skills & technology to make them. The inherited guns thing actually is traceble by police. Also, don't assume that the FBI can't figure out that you have weapons registered to dead people. Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.
Like I said, the system is not foolproof, but a nationwide registry is not the answer, because it will not solve the problem and it will create other problems.
My ex, my brother and my best friend's little brother all have guns that have/had no paper trail to them and they are in California. Oh, except that my best friend's little brother did have to tell the federal government about his, he is a Seal. Not sure why, but he had like three that had no record before joining the armed forces.
-
If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them. But those provisions just aren't included.
A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.
http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
So your complaint is what, exactly? That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?
I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.
I don't believe you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
-
If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them. But those provisions just aren't included.
A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.
http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
So your complaint is what, exactly? That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?
Kansas also has 'free' IDs. The problem is that to get them you need a birth certificate, which does cost money to obtain. Most folks without an ID would not have a birth certificate. Therefore, getting the 'free' IDs constitutes a financial burden.
-
If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me. They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around. Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.
I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited. The ghost gun thing is an issue, but one without a real legislative solution, since guns are simple tech and there are way too many people with the skills & technology to make them. The inherited guns thing actually is traceble by police. Also, don't assume that the FBI can't figure out that you have weapons registered to dead people. Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.
Like I said, the system is not foolproof, but a nationwide registry is not the answer, because it will not solve the problem and it will create other problems.
My ex, my brother and my best friend's little brother all have guns that have/had no paper trail to them and they are in California.
Then they are already felons...
http://carolrossi.hubpages.com/hub/California-Gun-Laws-Transfer-a-Firearm
Oh, except that my best friend's little brother did have to tell the federal government about his, he is a Seal. Not sure why, but he had like three that had no record before joining the armed forces.
That is due to an old federal law that governs militarily trained personnel. I have to do the same thing. Typically, I have to have an over-the-phone interview with an ATF agent whenever I buy a gun. They ask things like, "do you ever have suicidal thoughts?" and "have you ever thought about harming your spouse?". Basicly psych questions that no one in their right mind would answer yes to. I once asked the operator if anyone actually answers yes, and she said, "amazingly, yes they do. We have discovered more mentally disturbed people with these obvious questions than you would think."
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
Because of actual facts. Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence. But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Now, compare that to voter fraud. Do we have an issue with voter fraud? No. We have an issue with voter suppression via some of the laws in which the GOP pretending will limit vote fraud but no actual issue with it. So, which should elected officials care about? Mmmm, hard question. Sarcasm if you did not get it.
Exactly, there are daily reports of gun violence. Voter fraud, however, is a minor problem a best. A few local elections have been overturned over the years, but those are mostly due to misuse of absentee ballots, which voter ID laws don't address.
-
If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them. But those provisions just aren't included.
A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.
http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
So your complaint is what, exactly? That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?
Kansas also has 'free' IDs. The problem is that to get them you need a birth certificate, which does cost money to obtain. Most folks without an ID would not have a birth certificate. Therefore, getting the 'free' IDs constitutes a financial burden.
Oh, come on! Either the birth cert isn't the only thing that works, or there is likely some free way to get a certified copy of the birth cert. There are probably even charities to help with this kind of thing. This is a bullshit argument.
-
If the proposals requiring voter ID had these provisions - mostly a free, easily accessible ID - there wouldn't be as much controversy about them. But those provisions just aren't included.
A 15 second google search produced evidence that Alabama, Wisconsin and Texas already provide free ID's for the purpose of voter identification.
http://www.alabamavoterid.com/
http://www.gab.wi.gov/elections-voting/photo-id
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/06/25/dps-begin-offering-free-voter-id-cards-week/
So your complaint is what, exactly? That said free ID's are not in the particular voter ID law itself?
1) The delay of several years between enacting voter ID laws and providing free ID.
1b) It took a federal court order to mandate free ID.
2) Access to places to get said free ID is insufficient: http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification - my favorite is the center that provides free ID that's only open the fifth Wednesday of "every" month
3) As dramaman pointed out, some states that provide free IDs still require documents that require money to obtain - e.g. birth certificates, for which the cost of obtaining is more than the adjusted value of the wildly- and widely-acknowledged illegal poll taxes of yore.
But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud? I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.
-
Honestly, how would you know?
Google voter fraud research and see for yourself. Something like 20 reported cases nationwide, less than half of which were confirmed, and none of which would have actually been prevented by the voter ID laws now being proposed by republicans. Voter ID laws would not solve voter fraud, if voter fraud were actually happening.
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
Because of actual facts. Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence. But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Facts are funny things...
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia
-
Honestly, how would you know?
Google voter fraud research and see for yourself. Something like 20 reported cases nationwide, less than half of which were confirmed, and none of which would have actually been prevented by the voter ID laws now being proposed by republicans. Voter ID laws would not solve voter fraud, if voter fraud were actually happening.
Google isn't the answer for all questions. My question is this, if photo ID's are not required to vote, how would you know if there is voter fraud? There would be no evidence of it, if it were to occur. I can't possibly know if requiring IDs would prevent voter fraud or not, because we can't know if it's happening now. Also, just about every other representative democracy on Earth requires some form of legal ID to vote. Why are we special in this regard? Are the poor class in this country so destitute that they can't be expected to pursue and ID, while Canada disenfranchises their poor class? Germany? This is the same American "poor" class wherein 80% have central air conditioning, and the majority have a television and a cell phone.
-
I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.
I don't believe you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
You're free to believe whatever you'd like, but providing links that don't support your disbelief don't really do anything. There's nothing in that link that says you need to produce ID to open a savings account. Nor is there in the link from that site to the US laws. And in a few seconds of googling I found several sites that don't require a copy of, or information from, an ID to open a savings account: American Express & GE Bank
-
Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.
I live in Washington. I inherited guns from people in Arkansas, who either built them or bought them on the private market without any paper trail in a variety of other states. I'm sure the serial numbers have somebody's name on them from an original purchaser, but there is no record of transfer from that person to anyone in my family. Family lore is that some of them were bartered.
I contacted my local PD about this and was assured that it was legal to own them, legal to transport them across state lines, and did not require that I notify anybody about the transfer or ownership.
-
Don't get me wrong, I understand that these issues are very different. I agree that more gun regulation is a good thing. I am also in favor of education before using a weapon. I think I even alluded to this in my original post...
What MDM posted is more along the lines of what I was thinking.
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?
One can also ask the similar question: "Why is it that Republicans are for voting ID cards but against tightening down gun laws significantly?"
Both sides pretty much use these as scare tactics. Democrats wave the "they're trying to take your vote away" flag, while Republicans wave the "they're trying to take your guns away" flag.
On the flip side, some Republicans are legitimately concerned about voter fraud and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a voter ID is not onerous. And some Democrats are legitimately concerned about illegal gun ownership and have reasonable arguments describing why getting a gun owner ID is not onerous.
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly?
Because democrats want to make the world a better place, that's why. Gun violence in America is a problem, voter fraud is not. The practical effect of gun licensing is to provide a paper trail that might assist law enforcement in solving gun crimes. The practical effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, and minority communities that don't always have access to the required IDs.
In these two cases, more regulation of one thing makes the world a better place and more regulation of the other makes the world a worse place. You can't pick a position that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.
Obviously one of these things is much more dangerous than the other.
Did you really just imply that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad? I don't think things are quite as straightforward as you would like them to be. You can't pick a position party that just blindly supports more or less regulations on all issues without actually understanding the issues being discussed, at least not without sounding like a simpleton.
As to the statement that: voter fraud is not a problem.
Do you really think that people driven to positions of power as strongly as say Trump, Clinton, Bush or as committed to his stance as Sanders is or pretty much anyone who wants to be President of the USA (or someone who wants them to be) wouldn't be willing to commit fraud to get them into that position?
I think that if someone wanted to commit voter fraud there would be ways to get around voter ID card requirements (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud#Specific_methods) has a pretty decent list that includes some of these). Maybe voter IDs aren't the answer, but I think some regulation here would be a good idea. There needs to be some way to verify the validity of votes.
Edited to fix some quote problems
-
But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud? I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.
The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.
It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.
-
But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud? I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.
The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.
It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.
I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused (why those same people are against gun regulation, I don' know. That is part of the reason I broached this topic).
-
Tell me what state you live in, and I will tell you if you broke a law.
I live in Washington. I inherited guns from people in Arkansas, who either built them or bought them on the private market without any paper trail in a variety of other states. I'm sure the serial numbers have somebody's name on them from an original purchaser, but there is no record of transfer from that person to anyone in my family. Family lore is that some of them were bartered.
I contacted my local PD about this and was assured that it was legal to own them, legal to transport them across state lines, and did not require that I notify anybody about the transfer or ownership.
You were given bad legal advice. You are also a felon under Washington State law...
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113
The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...
"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
I did peruse that page for an exception, but I don't think it's there, because section 3 is pretty specific...
"(3) Where neither party to a prospective firearms transaction is a licensed dealer, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale or transfer through a licensed dealer as follows:"
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another. Which, honestly, I find to be strange...
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/state-private-sales-of-guns/
So while you might have a legal argument to cover you, if you owned all those guns before moving to Washington State, I'd say it's still in your interests to get your weapons recorded.
-
But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud? I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.
The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.
It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.
I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused (why those same people are against gun regulation, I don' know. That is part of the reason I broached this topic).
Have you read anything I've posted over the past two hours?
-
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113
The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...
"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another. Which, honestly, I find to be strange...
I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's. It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.
-
Did you really just imply that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad?
In general, no. I tried to imply that republicans would rather accept real gun murder today than risk some future politician infringing on their right to own any type of gun without restriction, and accept real voter discrimination today than risk some occurrence of voter fraud.
Whether you think those are good or bad is up to you, I suppose, but I suggested that democrats think avoiding bad certainties is preferable to risking bad maybes. They think they are making the world a better place. I guess you could argue that republicans also think they are making the world a better place by ensuring more murders to protect their gun liberties and more discrimination to protect against possible fraud, if you think liberty and discrimination are preferable to lower murder rates and more representative democracy.
-
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113
The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...
"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another. Which, honestly, I find to be strange...
I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's. It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.
Well, then. Work on those states that remain. I don't know how many there are, and I suspect that neither does anyone else on this forum. So if this kind of actually sensible gun regulation means something to you, find out how it works in your state. If it's broken, lobby to fix it like so many other pro-gun states have already done.
-
Did you really just imply that Democrats are good and Republicans are bad?
In general, no. I tried to imply that republicans would rather accept real gun murder today than risk some future politician infringing on their right to own any type of gun without restriction, and accept real voter discrimination today than risk some occurrence of voter fraud.
Whether you think those are good or bad is up to you, I suppose, but I suggested that democrats think avoiding bad certainties is preferable to risking bad maybes. They think they are making the world a better place. I guess you could argue that republicans also think they are making the world a better place by ensuring more murders to protect their gun liberties and more discrimination to protect against possible fraud, if you think liberty and discrimination are preferable to lower murder rates and more representative democracy.
So, in general, yes; that is what you implied.
-
I've never needed to produce ID to open a savings account or write a check.
I don't believe you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_your_customer
You're free to believe whatever you'd like, but providing links that don't support your disbelief don't really do anything. There's nothing in that link that says you need to produce ID to open a savings account. Nor is there in the link from that site to the US laws. And in a few seconds of googling I found several sites that don't require a copy of, or information from, an ID to open a savings account: American Express & GE Bank
Well, it's true enough that the KYC laws don't require an ID per se. They require that financial companies of all sorts know who their actual customers are, and take steps to ensure that they are being honest about their identity. There are other ways of doing so, particularly online, but a physical ID is the easiest way to do so in meatspace. I have always been asked for an ID when opening a new bank account, going back decades; but I never asked if a SS card or birth cert would suffice.
-
So while you might have a legal argument to cover you, if you owned all those guns before moving to Washington State, I'd say it's still in your interests to get your weapons recorded.
I didn't live in Washington when the transfers took place. The laws may have changed since the transfers took place. The inherited guns were exempted from licensing because of the generational skipping exemption, which allowed unrestricted transfer from grandparent to grandchild, but not father to son. They apparently weren't registered to my grandpa anyway, being privately acquired in times and places without such requirements.
But all of that is just secondary noise. The point is that your assertion that all guns have an easy to follow paper trail is demonstrably false, as any single anecdote like mine can illustrate. As a nation, I think we would benefit from closing some of these loopholes that allow undocumented transfers of lethal weapons.
-
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113
The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...
"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another. Which, honestly, I find to be strange...
I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's. It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.
Well, then. Work on those states that remain. I don't know how many there are, and I suspect that neither does anyone else on this forum. So if this kind of actually sensible gun regulation means something to you, find out how it works in your state. If it's broken, lobby to fix it like so many other pro-gun states have already done.
The link you provided earlier says 33 states don't require background checks for private sales. Thank you for that link, by the way - it's a good one with good information.
-
They should just make shooting people illegal.
What a strange notion! Do you think it would work?
-
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.113
The relevant quote, pertaining to yourself...
"(1) All firearm sales or transfers, in whole or part in this state including without limitation a sale or transfer where either the purchaser or seller or transferee or transferor is in Washington, shall be subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by state or federal law. The background check requirement applies to all sales or transfers including, but not limited to, sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons."
…
Arkansas is different, however, as there appears to be no restrictions on the sale and transfer of a long gun from one unlicensed person to another. Which, honestly, I find to be strange...
I think a lot of people just want the law to be like Washington's instead of Arkansas's. It seems like a lot of states don't require a background check for private sales, including some large ones like Texas and Florida.
Well, then. Work on those states that remain. I don't know how many there are, and I suspect that neither does anyone else on this forum. So if this kind of actually sensible gun regulation means something to you, find out how it works in your state. If it's broken, lobby to fix it like so many other pro-gun states have already done.
The link you provided earlier says 33 states don't require background checks for private sales. Thank you for that link, by the way - it's a good one with good information.
Interestingly, Washington State doesn't require background checks for private sales either, but everyone gets them, because federal law requires that licensed dealers do at least an "instant" check through the federal background system regardless of what the state requires. So the end result is that, because Washington state requires private sales to be brokered by a licensed dealer, at least the buyer gets a new background check. So that number is going to be less than 33, in practical terms.
-
MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.
Sol- Do you not see the problem with what you are saying? You really believe that roughly of the US population is in favor of murders? I think most people in favor minimizing gun regulation argue that they want more guns available to minimize violence. One thing is clear though, there is no overwhelming statistical evidence pointing for or against regulation. This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.
-
They should just make shooting people illegal.
What a strange notion! Do you think it would work?
Using this rationale, we could save 35 thousand auto deaths per year by making it illegal to crash your car.
I think I prefer the current alternative, which is to require training and licensing to use a car. I'd even be okay with making a firearms endorsement part of your vehicle licensing, if you had to pass some kind of test and demonstrate knowledge of basic safe operation and relevant laws.
Imagine what the roads would look like if the only requirement to drive was to pass a background check when buying a new car, but nothing for a used one. That's the current status of gun laws in America.
-
So while you might have a legal argument to cover you, if you owned all those guns before moving to Washington State, I'd say it's still in your interests to get your weapons recorded.
I didn't live in Washington when the transfers took place. The laws may have changed since the transfers took place. The inherited guns were exempted from licensing because of the generational skipping exemption, which allowed unrestricted transfer from grandparent to grandchild, but not father to son. They apparently weren't registered to my grandpa anyway, being privately acquired in times and places without such requirements.
But all of that is just secondary noise. The point is that your assertion that all guns have an easy to follow paper trail is demonstrably false, as any single anecdote like mine can illustrate. As a nation, I think we would benefit from closing some of these loopholes that allow undocumented transfers of lethal weapons.
I never said all guns, I said quite openly that the system wasn't perfect. I understand now why you are so absolute in the manner in which you communicate. That's how you think of the world, or at least your opposition. Black and white, just like your photo.
What I did say was that real police work has many tricks that permit the vast majority of previously registered firearms to be tracked. Perhaps that system can be improved, and I can imagine several ways to do so without impacting legitimate gun owners, but a national registry is never going to work.
-
But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud? I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.
The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.
It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.
I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused
Maybe a Republican exists somewhere that wants voter ID laws for non-racist reasons, but I've never met one. And I've met a lot of Republicans.
-
MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.
And my point was that neither absolute position is either ideal, nor the current state of public policy. In both cases, a little bit of practical regulation is the sweet spot. But the only people who seem to be in the debate at all are extremists from someone's perspectives.
This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.
Indeed.
-
You really believe that roughly of the US population is in favor of murders? I
No one is in favor of murder any more than anyone is in favor of voter fraud. But lots of people happily accept the risk of a higher gun murder rate because they want to preserve the unrestricted right to own guns, just like some people accept the risk of voter fraud in order to protect minorities' right to vote.
-
You really believe that roughly of the US population is in favor of murders? I
No one is in favor of murder any more than anyone is in favor of voter fraud. But lots of people happily accept the risk of a higher gun murder rate because they want to preserve the unrestricted right to own guns, just like some people accept the risk of voter fraud in order to protect minorities' right to vote.
http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia
-
MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.
And my point was that neither absolute position is either ideal, nor the current state of public policy. In both cases, a little bit of practical regulation is the sweet spot. But the only people who seem to be in the debate at all are extremists from someone's perspectives.
This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.
Indeed.
I agree that there is a sweet spot for regulation. The only problem is that I don't think this is politically possible in the current political landscape. That may require both sides to make concessions.
Sol-That sounds about right. But do you also accept the risk (if there were tight gun control laws) of a poor (black, Hispanic, etc.) person getting killed because it is too difficult to get a gun and can't defend themselves from someone who steals a gun from someone who forgot to register their gun(s) (or perhaps it was a person who forgot) after the new regulations are made law?
-
But mostly, it just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Why require a document that 10% of eligible votes don't have, when there's just no evidence of significant voter fraud? I don't object to voter ID in principle, but I find it odd that the party of "small government" is making government larger to solve a problem that no one seems to find much evidence for.
The reason this happens is that there is no end to the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid helping black people.
It's the same reason why the same people are Hell-bent on drug testing welfare recipients, even though administering the program costs more than the savings from weeding out ineligible drug users.
I'm sure some people want voter IDs because they don't want black people (or poor people, immigrants, etc.) to vote. However, I know plenty of Republicans who want voter IDs because they consider an important responsibility that they don't want abused
Maybe a Republican exists somewhere that wants voter ID laws for non-racist reasons, but I've never met one. And I've met a lot of Republicans.
Is that so?
You reminded me of a story. Some years ago, while bike & bus commuting, I met a young guy from New York City. He was a professional chef who worked for the same company that I do, but in the marketing research department. Why they needed a chef is not important for the story. He is black, which is relevant to this story. We were riding the bus toward home after work, and the topic of how safe the city is came up, which led to the topic of concealed carry firearms. I informed him just how common gun ownership was in this city, and he seemed so shocked. He said something along the lines of rednecks & guns in an urban environment, and how scary that would be for a black man. I then asked him, "Since you have moved to this city, have you ever met an unarmed white man?" There were five people on this bus at the late hour, and they could all hear us talking. The driver and myself were obviously white enough to claim the description. The driver just laughed. My friend looked straight at me for a few seconds as the idea sunk in, and then slowly turned to look at the black couple sitting behind us. They both just smiled and shrugged. Kentucky law prohibts me from deliberately displaying my weapon, or even mentioning that I'm armed unless asked by a police officer, because it could be interpreted as a threat. He had known me for about 6 months, talked to me just about every day, and until that moment never realized I was armed. His mental picture of what a typical gun owner looks and acts like was likely shaken at that moment. After about ten seconds of silence, he looks up at the notice above the driver that says, "No weapons" and points to it. I said, out loud, "that's there so the driver has an excuse to kick me off the bus if he wants to" and the driver laughs again.
I suspect that you know more conservatives than you ever suspected.
-
MoonShadow-yes I have read them, but the way I see it is that both are protected rights. So either you protect your rights by making sure they aren't abused, or you protect them by letting it just be open with no/very little regulation.
And my point was that neither absolute position is either ideal, nor the current state of public policy. In both cases, a little bit of practical regulation is the sweet spot. But the only people who seem to be in the debate at all are extremists from someone's perspectives.
This is more of about how people perceive the world and the logic they use to analyze it.
Indeed.
I agree that there is a sweet spot for regulation. The only problem is that I don't think this is politically possible in the current political landscape. That may require both sides to make concessions.
Unfortunately, I don't think either side is particularly interested in negotiations.
-
Can we please keep arguing about issues that other countries have already figured out and forgotten about?.
-
Can we please keep arguing about issues that other countries have already figured out and forgotten about?.
Obviously we can.
-
I understand now why you are so absolute in the manner in which you communicate. That's how you think of the world, or at least your opposition. Black and white, just like your photo.
So what's *your* excuse?
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
Because of actual facts. Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence. But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Facts are funny things...
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia
They are when you are posting lies. :) Try again
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
Because of actual facts. Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence. But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Facts are funny things...
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia
They are when you are posting lies. :) Try again
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
-
I understand now why you are so absolute in the manner in which you communicate. That's how you think of the world, or at least your opposition. Black and white, just like your photo.
So what's *your* excuse?
In this case, I have several hardened liberals arguing for nonsense, and I feel compelled to respond to nonsense. I don't particularly like defending republicans, but some of the membership on this forum would be okay with a witchhunt, but only if she was suspected of having an opinion that can't be found on the 5 x7 inch index card of acceptable & liberal opinions.
-
I just read through a lot of this... It has been pretty entertaining and thought-provoking.
I would like to draw a comparison that I haven't seen here yet. Voting ID card requirements and gun laws (ID, background checks, possible training).
Why is it that Democrats are against voting ID cards but for tightening down gun laws significantly? As far as a I understand it, both are constitutional rights that have the potential to do a lot of good, but also to do a lot of evil. Ok, I know that a gun in the hand of one person is a lot more dangerous than one bad vote, but I still think this is a valid comparison.
Personally, I wouldn't mind requiring IDs and some training required for both. I know the issue is a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see why both of these things are such party-line issues.
Because of actual facts. Isn't that funny. Countries that had mass shooting and then cracked down (say Australia) say a decrease in gun violence. But beside that, we have a major issue in this country with gun violence, flat out.
Facts are funny things...
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
http://www.examiner.com/article/increased-gun-control-lead-to-increased-gun-violence-australia
They are when you are posting lies. :) Try again
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
I stand corrected.
-
If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me. They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around. Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.
I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited.
I'm a little tired of you continuing to say this. You've said it at least twice prior to this on this forum in the past week or two, and both times I reported that my friend in GA got a gun at a gun show with no ID. And others chimed in that it's totally legal to do that in 37 states IIRC and provided links to demonstrate this. Please update your memory with this new information.
-
some Republicans are legitimately concerned about voter fraud
I don't think concerns about in-person voter fraud are legitimate. For a lot of reasons. One being that in-person voter fraud is nearly nonexistent. While there are certainly uninformed and delusional legislators out there, the stats about the almost non-existence of the supposed problem are routinely cited in legislative debates. Any honest legislator would have to admit that they are solving a problem that does not really exist.
But on the other hand, several legislators have slipped up and admitted that they are simply trying to keep Democrats from voting. And the widespread pattern of Republican officials reducing polling locations in Democratic precincts, eliminating or reducing early voting, and enacting restrictions to voting in general. It's just another form of poll tax.
Even if you thought the Republicans were being honest actors here, why would there be such a large wave of Republicans passing these measures in so many states all of the sudden, urged on by conservative interest groups? And if it were at all legitimate, why wouldn't at least some Democrats go along with it?
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/
-
I stand corrected.
So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.
It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.
Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?
Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered. We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out). Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns. The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.
-
In this case, I have several hardened liberals arguing for nonsense, and I feel compelled to respond to nonsense. I don't particularly like defending republicans, but some of the membership on this forum would be okay with a witchhunt, but only if she was suspected of having an opinion that can't be found on the 5 x7 inch index card of acceptable & liberal opinions.
Yes, we can tell you really hate it.
-
If my guns were ever used in a crime, law enforcement would have absolutely no avenue to find me. They are totally off the books for the last several owners, some of whom are dead now, and I suspect there are millions more guns like mine floating around. Claiming that current gun registration laws are effective seems ludicrous when you look at examples like mine.
I'd like to know which state this is, because I literally have never met a person that owned an unregistered firearm that he either didn't build himself (i.e. a ghost gun) or inherited.
I'm a little tired of you continuing to say this. You've said it at least twice prior to this on this forum in the past week or two, and both times I reported that my friend in GA got a gun at a gun show with no ID.
I remember telling you I didn't believe it, and I still don't. I don't believe that he legally bought a firearm at a gun show without a background check. I don't, and won't, until you can produce evidence. And just because Georgia may not require a background check, doesn't mean that he could buy one legally without one at a gun show. As I noted above, background checks are not required for transfers between individuals in many states, but other requirements still end up requiring them, and an ID is a fundamental need there. Such individual transfers are technically legal in Kentucky, except not really. I can't go to a gun show and buy most gun without an instant check, but my valid CC license qualifies for some things.
And others chimed in that it's totally legal to do that in 37 states IIRC and provided links to demonstrate this. Please update your memory with this new information.
Again, this is not so. First, it's 33 states that do not require a background check for an individual to individual transfer, not 37. Second, the real number is less than that, because I have already pointed out at least 2 that compel background checks in a round-about fashion. I don't know how easy or not easy it may be to buy a gun privately in most of these states, and neither do you.
-
I don't think concerns about in-person voter fraud are legitimate. For a lot of reasons. One being that in-person voter fraud is nearly nonexistent.
Maybe, maybe not. The anti-ID folks are in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative and answer questions such as "how do you know for sure?" There are other types of vote fraud beyond the "voter impersonation" type. E.g., voting in multiple places (one reason college IDs may not be accepted), and then there's potential electronic fraud (see http://americablog.com/2015/08/mathematician-actual-voter-fraud-kansas-republicans.html) that could be ascribed to Republicans or Democrats. Some of those would be limited due to voter ID, some not.
Yes, there are likely some cases in which it would be significantly more onerous for a person to obtain voter ID than to cast a vote. The "every fifth Wednesday" example is a good one. But overall, given the ubiquity of ID requirements for so many other things, it really seems the anti-ID folks doth protest too much.
-
I stand corrected.
So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.
It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.
I acknowledge that I was misinformed about the murder rate in Australia. I went to the trouble of going to check the data from the government of Australia itself, and I learned something new, and I have adjusted my worldview accordingly.
Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?
Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.
Wait, are you paraphrasing me, to me? You do realize that both sides of this particular issue do this, right?
We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out). Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns. The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.
Oh, it's not your stated position above that makes you a radical lefty fruitcake. I do believe that the above position is quite balanced and reasonable. I wasn't really thinking of you, Sol, when I made that comment; although you do like to argue. (I suppose I can be faulted there as well) The radical lefty fruitcakes that I am referring to have stated that 1)democrats just want to make the world a better place and 2) that republicans are racist and obstructionists with no capacity for reasoned thought. In this thread and a few similar ones. If you are interested in whom I speak of, in particular, I'm willing to discuss that in PM; because I'm unwilling to denigrate a particular person by name.
To be fair, I understand that the liberals on this forum, as well as generally, really do mean well and that they really would like to make the world a better place. Most of them, anyway. What I have a problem with is their analysis and chosen methods. I, admittedly, have a different worldview than you do, Sol. And I'm okay with that. If this were a right leaning forum, you'd see me argue against hardened neo-cons just as vehemently; and you'd likely argue right there by my side. I'm very well conditioned to being in the minority.
-
I think it indeed was Sol who said "democrats want to make the world a better place".
-
I think it indeed was Sol who said "democrats want to make the world a better place".
Yes, he did say something similar above in this thread. But I don't believe he has said both. Taken alone, the statement "democrats want to make the world a better place" is true; but so is "republicans just want to make the world a better place". The disconnect is that what each side believes will actually achieve that goal are often contradictory.
-
Just heard on the news that Al Gore is entering the race....
I stand corrected.
So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.
It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.
Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?
Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered. We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out). Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns. The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.
Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?
In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that. What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?
-
I stand corrected.
So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.
It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.
I acknowledge that I was misinformed about the murder rate in Australia. I went to the trouble of going to check the data from the government of Australia itself, and I learned something new, and I have adjusted my worldview accordingly.
Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?
Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered.
Wait, are you paraphrasing me, to me? You do realize that both sides of this particular issue do this, right?
We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out). Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns. The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.
Oh, it's not your stated position above that makes you a radical lefty fruitcake. I do believe that the above position is quite balanced and reasonable. I wasn't really thinking of you, Sol, when I made that comment; although you do like to argue. (I suppose I can be faulted there as well) The radical lefty fruitcakes that I am referring to have stated that 1)democrats just want to make the world a better place and 2) that republicans are racist and obstructionists with no capacity for reasoned thought. In this thread and a few similar ones. If you are interested in whom I speak of, in particular, I'm willing to discuss that in PM; because I'm unwilling to denigrate a particular person by name.
To be fair, I understand that the liberals on this forum, as well as generally, really do mean well and that they really would like to make the world a better place. Most of them, anyway. What I have a problem with is their analysis and chosen methods. I, admittedly, have a different worldview than you do, Sol. And I'm okay with that. If this were a right leaning forum, you'd see me argue against hardened neo-cons just as vehemently; and you'd likely argue right there by my side. I'm very well conditioned to being in the minority.
Seriously, "their methods and analysis"? You are the one posting such biased articles that boil down to conspiracy and falsehoods.
-
Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?
It's not an easy license to obtain.
In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that.
Need? No.
What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?
Mostly just for fun, like a stupidly expensive version of a fire-cracker. Come visit me and we could go here...
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=machine+gun+shoot&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
And no, you can't hear the music while in the crowd. I don't know why they bother.
-
Seriously, "their methods and analysis"? You are the one posting such biased articles that boil down to conspiracy and falsehoods.
Only occasionally.
-
Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?
It's not an easy license to obtain.
In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that.
Need? No.
What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?
Mostly just for fun, like a stupidly expensive version of a fire-cracker. Come visit me and we could go here...
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=machine+gun+shoot&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
And no, you can't here the music while in the crowd. I don't know why they bother.
Ha well I suppose I over reacted a bit when I saw that line in sol's post.
Probably typical of the debate that is going on - see a red flag and charge.
-
Mostly just for fun, like a stupidly expensive version of a fire-cracker. Come visit me and we could go here...
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=machine+gun+shoot&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
And no, you can't here the music while in the crowd. I don't know why they bother.
You have to be independently wealthy to even afford the ammunition for most of those weapons, much less the actual firearm.
I suspect the sudden quiet is because so many are still trying to digest that video? Was it a bit too far outside of your comfort zone?
-
Ha well I suppose I over reacted a bit when I saw that line in sol's post.
Probably typical of the debate that is going on - see a red flag and charge.
It is quite fun, btw. There are even some machine guns that can be rented, but you still have to buy the ammunition and you are not permitted to leave the firing line with them. They make it rather clear that the ATF agents that are ever present at that event would not take kindly to that. The ammunition alone to shoot the GE minigun is about $200 for 20 seconds. Cheaper to watch, though.
-
I feel sorry for Hilary really. Her whole life for the last 40 years has been one big lie. Can you imagine being married to a serial adulterer and have everyone know you are? I'll bet they haven't slept in the same bed since 1983. Probably pass each other in the hall and say "fuck you."
Definitely not a good role model for women IMHO.
and...
If Trump wins the Republican nomination, which actually could happen with his appeal to tea partiers and people who value the concept of a border, I would definitely vote for him just to change the failed trajectory of the country over the last 3 administrations. He would definitely win the border war in like 4 weeks. Other than that and that his current wife is much hotter than Ivan Trump (have you seen your recent pictures?)
I dunno Bobbo, given his marriage record, Trump is definitely not a good role model for men IMHO.
/sarcasm - not actually my HO. Trump is a buffoon for the words that spew out of his mouth - not for who he married. Plus, I bit; I couldn't let the 'role model for women' comment go. Smacks of this (http://xkcd.com/385).
(sorry to resurrect old posts - just read through most of this beastly thread and wanted to post to follow).
-
So, now that I'm on this thread - I will spew some of my thoughts too!
I don't love anyone in the running for prez. Regarding Hillary - I've come around a bit after reading Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War by Robert Gates. She comes off as competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful. I think she's qualified to be prez. That said, I still dislike how politically calculated she is, answering questions without really answering them, for example. But the thing I dislike most is that she's such a hawk. I think she'll continue killing people in the Pakistan hills with drone strikes - with no court orders, no warrants, no due process - and with the side effects of killing innocent people and creating ever more hatred toward the USA. I think this is one of our most misguided activities. Even as I think she'd do well as president, I can't support anyone who is so willing to compromise our ideals for 'safety'. The email thing - well, honestly I haven't been paying attention. I'm trying to stay on the low info diet.
That's enough for now - BS later (Bernie Sanders discussion later).
-
So, now that I'm on this thread - I will spew some of my thoughts too!
I don't love anyone in the running for prez. Regarding Hillary - I've come around a bit after reading Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War by Robert Gates. She comes off as competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful. I think she's qualified to be prez. That said, I still dislike how politically calculated she is, answering questions without really answering them, for example. But the thing I dislike most is that she's such a hawk. I think she'll continue killing people in the Pakistan hills with drone strikes - with no court orders, no warrants, no due process - and with the side effects of killing innocent people and creating ever more hatred toward the USA. I think this is one of our most misguided activities. Even as I think she'd do well as president, I can't support anyone who is so willing to compromise our ideals for 'safety'. The email thing - well, honestly I haven't been paying attention. I'm trying to stay on the low info diet.
That's enough for now - BS later (Bernie Sanders discussion later).
Hilary is very "competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful". And is also politically calculating as you say. But literally everyone else running has been politically calculating their entire public careers. Some may just be better at hiding it. But I think if you actually watch them, they aren't really that good. Politicians don't answer questions and take all kinds of wacky positions that differ from their position last week because of polling or backlash. It's a game for them. Every single one of them to at least some extent. Even Trump who appears to be telling it like it is has been making many political calculations for years. I would say the least calculating is Sanders because he's been pursuing the causes he believes in for years, even when they have not been popular in the House or Senate. So he has not moderated his tone in order to fit in better and be more politically successful. Ironically I think that's actually what has caused him to be so popular with the movement he's leading right now. But even he has changed the way he talks about issues like gun control because his relatively permissive votes in the past are less popular with the Democratic primary voters he's trying to attract.
And every single candidate on both sides (with the possible exception of Sanders) will continue the extra-judicial killings via drone strikes if they are elected. Some would escalate them or even start a war.
-
Hilary is very "competent, measured, diligent, thoughtful". And is also politically calculating as you say. But literally everyone else running has been politically calculating their entire public careers. Some may just be better at hiding it. But I think if you actually watch them, they aren't really that good. Politicians don't answer questions and take all kinds of wacky positions that differ from their position last week because of polling or backlash. It's a game for them. Every single one of them to at least some extent. Even Trump who appears to be telling it like it is has been making many political calculations for years. I would say the least calculating is Sanders because he's been pursuing the causes he believes in for years, even when they have not been popular in the House or Senate. So he has not moderated his tone in order to fit in better and be more politically successful. Ironically I think that's actually what has caused him to be so popular with the movement he's leading right now. But even he has changed the way he talks about issues like gun control because his relatively permissive votes in the past are less popular with the Democratic primary voters he's trying to attract.
And every single candidate on both sides (with the possible exception of Sanders) will continue the extra-judicial killings via drone strikes if they are elected. Some would escalate them or even start a war.
Yup. (Nodding in agreement through your whole post)
That's the quality that attracts people to Bernie - honesty. It's such a rare quality in a politician that people are willing to forget their own ideologies and vote for him.
-
Whoever gets elected, we all know what will happen. The promises of their platform will disappear, some new left-field problem will take the stage, and their job will be like all those before: Put out the fires that burn the brightest, show up at socially applaudable occasions, screw something up so late night tv has something to work with, retire and write a book.
-
Just heard on the news that Al Gore is entering the race....
I stand corrected.
So just to be clear, Australia's gun control reforms in the 90s were followed by lowered homicide rates, and dramatically lowered gun homicide rates.
It's only one country, not a universal trend observed everywhere, and I guess you could argue that America is not Australia, but it does sort of support the idea that US murder rates are higher than they need to be because of our continued refusal to track, much less regulate or restrict, firearm ownership.
Our is that just more liberal nonsense talking points?
Gun control is a hot button topic, in part because politicians use it to fire up voters all out of proportion to the actual changes being considered. We already restrict firearm ownership in America (technically felons and the deranged are supposed to be prohibited, and all machine guns and rocket launchers require licenses, and privately owned nukes are right out). Just like we already restrict free speech and the free press in some circumstances, and even the NRA doesn't advocate for letting deranged convicted murderers stockpile machine guns. The only real debate as to what these restrictions should be, and how to impose them in a way that respects the rights of law abiding citizens. I favor enforcing our current restrictions better, and closing the loopholes that allow people to skirt the law. I don't think that makes me a radical lefty fruitcake.
Holy fuck what is wrong with your country when all you need to own a rocket launcher is simply a licence?
In what delusional state of madness is it considered acceptable for an ordinary citizen to need something like that. What exactly is that person going to use it for, other than an act of terror?
There's a guy on reddit's gun sub-reddit who is a facilitator of the process of getting a license for NFA weapons (the colloquial term for these ridiculous weapons.) It's a very expensive and very time-consuming process to be able to own even one of that type of weapon, and the process (I believe) has to be done for each weapon. Plus there's a substantial FBI background check (although I'm less impressed by it now that I know you can avoid giving your fingerprints by registering the gun to a trust or limited liability corporation.) Anyway, the machine guns are just really cool and/or collector's items, and I don't know WTF a rocket launcher would be for, if that happens to be legal. If I had one, I'd beg people for dead vehicles so I could do slow-motion videos of javelins destroying the vehicles.
-
New poll numbers today suggest that all of the traditional Republican candidates are falling behind the crazy ones. Six months ago I would have said Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee, he's now polling at 9%. Rubio and Walker have spent the past several years building names for themselves within the party, but now poll at 4 and 6% They're toast.
Instead, Trump is the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, at 25%, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz at 12 and 10%. Some people had high hopes that Rand Paul would transform his party, but his campaign is already over.
If you add up all those numbers, it looks like Republicans might have more than 50% of the electorate if they were to get behind a single candidate. Except that the same poll has Clinton and Sanders at 49 and 30%, suggesting that the poll was forcing folks to pick a candidate even if they don't intend to vote for that party.
But those are all just primary votes, not indicative of how the nation would vote in a head to head. I'm eager to see some new head to head polls between the parties because the last ones I've seen are almost a month old, and Trump has come a long way in the past month. Back in July, Trump would have lost to Clinton or even to Sanders by about 15% of the popular vote. 15% is about the margin that Trump has gained in the past month, compared to his Republican rivals, but it's not clear if rise would translate into the same jump in a national poll of all candidates.
-
New poll numbers today suggest that all of the traditional Republican candidates are falling behind the crazy ones. Six months ago I would have said Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee, he's now polling at 9%. Rubio and Walker have spent the past several years building names for themselves within the party, but now poll at 4 and 6% They're toast.
Instead, Trump is the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, at 25%, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz at 12 and 10%. Some people had high hopes that Rand Paul would transform his party, but his campaign is already over.
If you add up all those numbers, it looks like Republicans might have more than 50% of the electorate if they were to get behind a single candidate. Except that the same poll has Clinton and Sanders at 49 and 30%, suggesting that the poll was forcing folks to pick a candidate even if they don't intend to vote for that party.
But those are all just primary votes, not indicative of how the nation would vote in a head to head. I'm eager to see some new head to head polls between the parties because the last ones I've seen are almost a month old, and Trump has come a long way in the past month. Back in July, Trump would have lost to Clinton or even to Sanders by about 15% of the popular vote. 15% is about the margin that Trump has gained in the past month, compared to his Republican rivals, but it's not clear if rise would translate into the same jump in a national poll of all candidates.
Those polls are of likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters, respectively. You can't use them at all for general election results.
-
Those polls are of likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters, respectively. You can't use them at all for general election results.
Right, and I didn't.
Which is why I said I was hoping for new head to head polls since the last ones I've seen are about a month old. For example, Trump would have lost to Sanders back in July (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) but I haven't seen any similar polling since Trump's big jump in the polls.
-
Also, that same poll has some updated head to head results. Clinton is up 7 against Fiorina, up 5 against Trump, and down 2 to Bush or Rubio. Trump has popular support among the Republican base, but he's disliked by far more people.
-
Those polls are of likely Republican voters and likely Democratic voters, respectively. You can't use them at all for general election results.
Right, and I didn't.
Yes you did:
Instead, Trump is the leading GOP candidate by a wide margin, at 25%, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz at 12 and 10%. Some people had high hopes that Rand Paul would transform his party, but his campaign is already over.
If you add up all those numbers, it looks like Republicans might have more than 50% of the electorate if they were to get behind a single candidate.
Those numbers were only for Republican likely voters. No likely Democratic voters go into those numbers.
-
Also, that same poll has some updated head to head results. Clinton is up 7 against Fiorina, up 5 against Trump, and down 2 to Bush or Rubio. Trump has popular support among the Republican base, but he's disliked by far more people.
You motivated me to go find full results: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/
-
I don't think that Carson number will last very long. Especially with him having performed research using aborted fetal tissue. The fact that Sanders is now leading in NH and closing hard in Iowa is very interesting.
I still think Trump will be around for a long time but won't win the R nomination. I think that if no one else gets in the race, Sanders has a slight edge as the most likely to win the D nomination.
-
Also, that same poll has some updated head to head results. Clinton is up 7 against Fiorina, up 5 against Trump, and down 2 to Bush or Rubio. Trump has popular support among the Republican base, but he's disliked by far more people.
You motivated me to go find full results: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/
Yes, that's where I was looking. I meant to include the link - sorry about that. It doesn't appear to have head to head results with Sanders, though.
-
I think that if no one else gets in the race, Sanders has a slight edge as the most likely to win the D nomination.
While I agree that more Democrats like Sanders than Clinton if they get down to details, I think Clinton would win handily and Sanders would be a close race. And most Democrats would rather be assured of a Hillary presidency than risk Bernie losing and maybe getting a Trump presidency.
Hillary is a corporatist sellout and far too hawkish for most liberals, but that's the sort of American middle-road that would otherwise appeal to lots of cross-over voters. Despite what you hear out of the GOP PR firms about how Hillary is a lefty pinko, she's too far to the right on business/economic/wealth issues and foreign policy to appeal to real liberals, which is maybe her strength in a general election. Like Obama and Clinton 1, she's favors protecting business interests, favors bailing out too-big-to-fail failures, and favors bombing brown people who look sideways at America.
-
One of the most interesting questions to me is the second choice question: number 9 in the poll. Marco Rubio is the top second choice (13%), suggesting high favorability even though he has pretty low first choice numbers. Similarly, Bush's numbers look a lot better when you take into account his second-choice numbers - which are second only to Rubio's. Bush and Rubio might not be a ton of people's favorite right now, but they are people that the Republicans can unite behind.
I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates. And when you take Trump's numbers out, Carson, Cruz, and Bush are essentially tied.
-
I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.
Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts. They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge. But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump? Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead? How's that going to play for them?
One option is that Trump's candidacy is just the death throws the GOP. They've technically only won the popular vote in a Presidential election one time (Kerry) since 1988, suggesting that the nation as a whole has become majority Democratic. They've struggled with women voters, with latino voters, with young voters. The popular party faithful are frantic, trying to find a way to reclaim the glory the Nixon/Reagan era, and they don't think an establishment candidate like Walker can clinch it so they're praying for a miracle and Trump is their Hail Mary candidate. Maybe something truly different, something wild and unexpected? Worth a shot since grinding it out straight up is a guaranteed losing path?
But I still think Trump would lose, and then what do those people say? How do you rebuild your party after losing everything, and then losing your wild comeback bid?
-
I think that if no one else gets in the race, Sanders has a slight edge as the most likely to win the D nomination.
While I agree that more Democrats like Sanders than Clinton if they get down to details, I think Clinton would win handily and Sanders would be a close race. And most Democrats would rather be assured of a Hillary presidency than risk Bernie losing and maybe getting a Trump presidency.
Hillary is a corporatist sellout and far too hawkish for most liberals, but that's the sort of American middle-road that would otherwise appeal to lots of cross-over voters. Despite what you hear out of the GOP PR firms about how Hillary is a lefty pinko, she's too far to the right on business/economic/wealth issues and foreign policy to appeal to real liberals, which is maybe her strength in a general election. Like Obama and Clinton 1, she's favors protecting business interests, favors bailing out too-big-to-fail failures, and favors bombing brown people who look sideways at America.
It's really hard to say at this point, especially without knowing who the opponent(s) would be, but I think Sanders would be more likely to win the general. Hilary is more conservative than Obama. And Obama is basically a 90's moderate Republican updated for some social issues where the entire populace has fundamentally shifted (like gay marriage and the wars on drugs and crime). No matter how corporatist and hawkish and sell-out Hilary gets, people on the right and middle have generally made up their mind about her, and she's not going to win people over by being more conservative--if they want someone conservative they'll just vote for the Republican. There's this weird irrational emotional reaction to her that people have. It's probably sexism on some level. She's also not very personable and comes off as somewhat phony, so that's probably part of it too. And the Clintons were very successfully demonized by the right (did you know she killed Vince Foster?) for so long that it's burned into people's minds. Whereas if you pay any attention you know what Sanders stands for and that it's authentic. And his positions generally resonate with the electorate. A big part of winning the general is turning out the base. Sanders is clearly generating much more enthusiasm than Hilary. I think that will continue to grow as the race moves on.
One of the most interesting questions to me is the second choice question: number 9 in the poll. Marco Rubio is the top second choice (13%), suggesting high favorability even though he has pretty low first choice numbers. Similarly, Bush's numbers look a lot better when you take into account his second-choice numbers - which are second only to Rubio's. Bush and Rubio might not be a ton of people's favorite right now, but they are people that the Republicans can unite behind.
I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates. And when you take Trump's numbers out, Carson, Cruz, and Bush are essentially tied.
I still think it'll be either Bush, Walker, or Kasich. But with so many people running, it will be a long time before we will know. You need to have deep pockets to run that kind of a long race. No one will have deeper pockets than Trump and Bush, but Walker could tap a lot of Koch money if needed. The person who can win a primary or two will also get a bunch of cash flowing to them.
-
I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.
Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts. They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge. But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump? Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead? How's that going to play for them?
One option is that Trump's candidacy is just the death throws the GOP. They've technically only won the popular vote in a Presidential election one time (Kerry) since 1988, suggesting that the nation as a whole has become majority Democratic. They've struggled with women voters, with latino voters, with young voters. The popular party faithful are frantic, trying to find a way to reclaim the glory the Nixon/Reagan era, and they don't think an establishment candidate like Walker can clinch it so they're praying for a miracle and Trump is their Hail Mary candidate. Maybe something truly different, something wild and unexpected? Worth a shot since grinding it out straight up is a guaranteed losing path?
But I still think Trump would lose, and then what do those people say? How do you rebuild your party after losing everything, and then losing your wild comeback bid?
They'll say the same thing they've said after every other loss--"we should have gone more conservative". "We weren't true to our principles". Etc.
-
I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.
Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts. They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge. But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump? Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead? How's that going to play for them?
One option is that Trump's candidacy is just the death throws the GOP. They've technically only won the popular vote in a Presidential election one time (Kerry) since 1988, suggesting that the nation as a whole has become majority Democratic. They've struggled with women voters, with latino voters, with young voters. The popular party faithful are frantic, trying to find a way to reclaim the glory the Nixon/Reagan era, and they don't think an establishment candidate like Walker can clinch it so they're praying for a miracle and Trump is their Hail Mary candidate. Maybe something truly different, something wild and unexpected? Worth a shot since grinding it out straight up is a guaranteed losing path?
But I still think Trump would lose, and then what do those people say? How do you rebuild your party after losing everything, and then losing your wild comeback bid?
And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.
-
And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.
It's not really odd. As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And becausE republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts. Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.
-
And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.
It's not really odd. As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And becausE republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts. Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.
Well I think we are forgetting that in many states that are heavily Red or Blue that many, many Republican voters sit out on Presidential election day as they know their vote won't have much impact. I imagine many Dems sit out as well for the same reason. So counting the popular vote doesn't tell you much. It appears to be slanted slightly in favor of Dems on the Presidential stage. And man those swing states have some power come election time.
I'm not sure the district redrawing has much if any impact on the Governorship's of which the Republicans appear to have 62% vs Dem 36%. That is a pretty big swing. Our state currently has a Dem as Governor. I don't see that holding up next go round.
Here is an interesting take on the Perot effort from his former staff leader. We forget just how whack Perot was. Remember that Admiral he picked as a running mate - WTF?
I think Trump is smart enough to pick a decent VP candidate should he win the Republican nomination.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/16/yes-donald-trump-can-win-but-heres-what-it-will-take/
-
And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.
It's not really odd. As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And becausE republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts. Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.
On top of this, young people tend to only vote for president and not vote any other times, whereas older people will vote whenever they are able to. Also, population doesn't matter in the senate, it's how many states are dem vs how many states are republican, and I think a lot of the smaller states are republican.
-
I personally don't think Trump can win the nomination because I don't think he can ever hit 50% of delegates.
Everyone keeps saying this but I'm having doubts. They say Trump is a joke candidate, that it's only a matter of time before he implodes, that the party won't back him, that a more serious option will emerge. But what is the GOP going to do if 75% of their electorate want Trump? Just ignore them and promote a party insider instead? How's that going to play for them?
My point is that I don't see a circumstance where he hits 50% of delegates, let alone 75%. Way too many people just dislike him, and strongly prefer "any other Republican" to Trump. Trump may last until the convention with 20-30% of the delegates, but I don't see how he wins the nomination when he's so unpopular with the other 70%.
-
And yet oddly the Republicans have majorities in both houses and control the legislatures and Governorship's of a very large majority of states.
It's not really odd. As we've previously discussed, republican voters are overrepresented because they are concentrated in states that have disproportionate representation. And because republicans were charge when we last redrew congressional districts. Gerrymandering is a wonderful thing.
Or, to empirically show the effect of gerrymandering vs algorithmic definition of voting districts:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/28/0338208/mathematicians-study-effects-of-gerrymandering-on-2012-election (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/28/0338208/mathematicians-study-effects-of-gerrymandering-on-2012-election)
and the original study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796)
Yes, gerrymandering can strongly favor individual parties (republicans and democrats have both done it, the details and severity of which by party I cannot comment on).
-
Or, to empirically show the effect of gerrymandering vs algorithmic definition of voting districts:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/28/0338208/mathematicians-study-effects-of-gerrymandering-on-2012-election (http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/11/28/0338208/mathematicians-study-effects-of-gerrymandering-on-2012-election)
and the original study:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8796)
Yes, gerrymandering can strongly favor individual parties (republicans and democrats have both done it, the details and severity of which by party I cannot comment on).
Many well-reasoned comments in the first linked article. E.g., this one:
| Personally, I find it all to be a bunch of bullcrap. Have you seen those voting districts that are along, squiggly lines that wander all over the place?
Yeah, and you know what? One of the most famous ones is in North Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina's_12th_congressional_district) [wikipedia.org], the site of this study.
And guess who created it and why? Democrats did (http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/departments/scr/redist/redsum/NCSUM.HTM) [state.mn.us], in order to secure a minority voting block big enough to elect a black person to Congress. Ever since, it's been one of the most litigated districts in the U.S.
I'm always shocked at how many people don't realize that this is one of the primary LEGAL rationales for gerrymandering -- back in the 1980s and 1990s you even saw unholy alliances between minority leaders and conservative Republicans conspiring to create awkward districts in some states that would give each group what they wanted: the minorities got enough people together in a district to elect a minority to Congress, and the Republicans got to excise many of those annoying mostly Democratic minority voters from their districts.
We are still living with that legacy in many states, and I frankly have found news coverage in recent years of gerrymandering to be lacking in discussion of this issue. It's not all just Republicans who have taken control of state legislatures -- we've also had a committed effort for quite a few decades to segregate voter districts in such a way that would allow more minorities in Congress.
But of course that creates a problem, because it ends up disenfranching non-minority Democrats who get stuck in all the surrounding districts that can no longer elect a Democrat because a large portion of Democrats were deliberately removed from swing districts to create the minority-majority district.
So the Democrats end up in a Catch-22. If they want to promote Congressional "diversity," they can create districts where minorities get elected, but they can end up screwing themselves over in the process because then all the surrounding districts become more Republican and make it more difficult for Democrats to actually achieve an overall Congressional majority.
It's certainly not the only issue that has led to Republican majorities in Congress -- but it's one that's not often talked about, and it has had some significant effects
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/12/the-amazing-thing-about-cnns-iowa-poll-is-donald-trumps-leads-in-everything-besides-the-horserace/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/16/donald-trumps-surprisingly-savvy-comment-about-american-politics/
Trump's ability to get credit for not having positions is really interesting.
Reading about Fiorina being 2nd on the economy was interesting given her actual track record. People generally incorrectly think that a good business person would be good at leading an economy (and the president doesn't lead the economy anyway, but that's a separate issue).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/business/carly-fiorinas-record-not-so-sterling.html
Quoting a summary of article:
Mr. Sorkin notes that this is all the more striking because she was fired by Hewlett-Packard after the company's stock dropped by half in 2005. Mrs. Fiorina has long blamed this on the bursting of the dot-com bubble and the deepening recession in Silicon Valley after the Sept. 11 attacks.
...
Mrs. Fiorina defends her record, saying, "We took the growth rate from 2 percent to 9 percent." The problem is she is referring to Hewlett-Packard's revenue rather than its profit. If you make enough acquisitions - especially one the size of Compaq - you can inflate your revenue figures and buy growth, Mr. Sorkin argues. Real business success lies in increasing profitability.
As the campaign goes on, Mrs. Fiorina will have difficulty arguing that her time as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard should be viewed as an asset, and not a liability, Mr. Sorkin writes.
-
Did anyone else see this today?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/meet-the-presidential-hopeful-whod-quit-after-signing-a-single-law-20150819?page=3
Curious to hear what others' thoughts are on this. Too idealistic to be practical?
-
Curious to hear what others' thoughts are on this. Too idealistic to be practical?
Depending upon his choice of Vice, I'd vote for him. But I still don't think his goal is to actually get elected. Basicly, he is trying to force the issue upon the Democratic Party's real hopefuls, in a manner similar to (but nicer) how Don Trump is controlling the nature of the debate in the Republican party.
Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election. I would not like that.
-
Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.
Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
-
Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.
Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress. And I could so see Warren being assassinated under such conditions.
-
Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.
Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress. And I could so see Warren being assassinated under such conditions.
Huh? There's no mechanism for the Speaker to become Vice President. If Congress doesn't confirm the Presidents pick for VP then there isn't a VP. If both the President and the VP leave office the Speaker would become President. Why do you think Boehner would ever become VP?
-
Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress.
Agreed - it would be interesting. There is precedent for a president of one party getting the nominee approved by both houses controlled by the other party: Ford replacing Agnew and Rockefeller replacing Ford.
-
Why do you think Boehner would ever become VP?
Instead of "VP", I read the thought as "next in line for the presidency".
-
Keep in mind, no matter who he chooses as his Vice; once he resigns the new vice becomes John Boehner until the next election.
Not necessarily - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
Well, not necessarily, but at present both houses are controlled by Republicans, and the default order of succession is what happens if the new President cannot get their nominee approved by Congress. And I could so see Warren being assassinated under such conditions.
Huh? There's no mechanism for the Speaker to become Vice President. If Congress doesn't confirm the Presidents pick for VP then there isn't a VP. If both the President and the VP leave office the Speaker would become President. Why do you think Boehner would ever become VP?
More accurately, he would be the next in the line of succession. If you want to be completely accurate, the Vice's only constitutional role other than as successor is to be the president of the Senate. Boehner wouldn't be the president of the senate, necessarily, but he would be the presidential successor.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/donald-trump-fails-to-fill-alabama-stadium-but-fans-zeal-is-undiminished.html
Although Mr. Trump has drawn criticism for unveiling few detailed policy proposals, many of his supporters said they were unbothered.
“When he gets in there, he’ll figure it out,” said Amanda Mancini, who said she had traveled from California to see Mr. Trump. “So we do have to trust him, but he has something that we can trust in. We can look at the Trump brand, we can look at what he’s done, and we can say that’s how he’s done everything.”
Still, others said they had plenty of advice for the man they regularly identified in conversation as “Mr. Trump.”
“Hopefully, he’s going to sit there and say, ‘When I become elected president, what we’re going to do is we’re going to make the border a vacation spot, it’s going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill,’ ” said Jim Sherota, 53, who works for a landscaping company. “That’d be one nice thing.”
-
This conservative radio host in Iowa is literally calling for the reinstitution of slavery and forced labor. He just wants to enslave Mexicans and others here without permission. And he's had most of the Republican candidates on his show. And Cruz and Walker went on the show *after* he said this. Cruz came on after he said it to agree with him that birthright citizenship (i.e. the 14th amendment) should be revoked. And about half the other candidates have stated they agree with this position. Rubio (who would have his citizenship revoked under this plan) is hedging.
MICKELSON: Well, what's wrong with slavery?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/19/ia-radio-host-jan-mickelson-enslave-undocumente/205020
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/08/conservative-radio-host-from-iowa-wants-to-enslave-immigrants
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37301/iowa-radio-host-mickelson-okay-with-bringing-back-slavery/
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally. It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally. I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally. It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally. I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.
This is correct. And for Rubio in particular, it wouldn't have any effect on his citizenship or qualifications for the presidency anyway. There is a clause in the US Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation. Anyone who already has a social security number, regardless of under what conditions, gets to keep it.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally. It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally. I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.
This is correct. And for Rubio in particular, it wouldn't have any effect on his citizenship or qualifications for the presidency anyway. There is a clause in the US Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation. Anyone who already has a social security number, regardless of under what conditions, gets to keep it.
Who knows. Trump says the clause doesn't grant citizenship to children of those illegally here. If he prevails in court with that view (which he won't) then Rubio would never have been a citizen in the first place, so it wouldn't be removing something from him. And if they are going to amend the Constitution to remove or modify the 14th Amendment, then they could amend the ex post facto clause as well.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally. It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally. I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.
This is correct. And for Rubio in particular, it wouldn't have any effect on his citizenship or qualifications for the presidency anyway. There is a clause in the US Constitution that prohibits retroactive legislation. Anyone who already has a social security number, regardless of under what conditions, gets to keep it.
Who knows. Trump says the clause doesn't grant citizenship to children of those illegally here. If he prevails in court with that view (which he won't) then Rubio would never have been a citizen in the first place, so it wouldn't be removing something from him.
Uh, no. Rubio's parents were here legally. Rubio's parents came from Cuba, and since they were fleeing a communist state, the 'dry feet' rule applied to them. They were granted full citizenship when Rubio was four years old. You can make the argument that Cuban refugees should not get special treatment, but since they do; Rubio's parents were, indeed, legal residents of Florida when Marco Rubio was born.
And if they are going to amend the Constitution to remove or modify the 14th Amendment, then they could amend the ex post facto clause as well.
Perhaps, but it's going to be next to impossible to amend the Constitution under any conditions for some time; and modifying both the 14th amendment & the Ex post facto clause would complicate things further. A repeal of the 14th isn't really even being discussed, even by the Trump team. They are claiming that the 14th amendment doesn't address birthright citizenship anyway, and that they can challenge the idea in court. I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.
-
I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.
Which part of the Trump campaign is anything but?
-
I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.
Which part of the Trump campaign is anything but?
None, as far as I can tell.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally. It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally. I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.
I really like this idea. If it's applied retroactively, all white people in the US would lose citizenship . . . since they are all the anchor baby offspring of people who illegally invaded native land.
-
I have my doubts about that, but it's really just political posturing right now anyway.
Which part of the Trump campaign is anything but?
Which part of ANY campaign is anything but? Slick Hillary? Commie Bernie? Bush E Eyebrows? They are ALL duplicitous, deceitful, power hungry zealots that think they know better....although I doubt we'll ever see a liar as accomplish as, say, Slick Willie or B Hussein Obama, as those two are probably the best ever....if you think there is a difference between the leftists and the evil GOP, you have swallowed too much koolaid. They are ALL posturing, as none of them can afford to let anyone know who they really are, what they really think, and what they would really like to get done....you know, if you like your doctor, you can KEEP your doctor. Period. And if you like your insurance, you can KEEP your insurance. Period. They are liars, and when they lie they speak their native language.
-
You may have noticed that recent presidents don't pay much attention to the constitution. One big plus Trump has is that he is not a lawyer. Although I'm sure he'll have an army of them once president. The anchor baby deal isn't much of a concern as most illegals will choose to take their kids with them when they leave. Most will leave voluntarily as there will be no one willing to hire them, rent to them or give them government money. And Trump's poll numbers continue to rise. There is nothing he could say at this point that would knock him out of the race. He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?
-
Yeah only a year and two months to go. No where to go but up. >.<
-
He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?
If he did that he may have a shot at my vote :)
-
One big plus Trump has is that he is not a lawyer. Although I'm sure he'll have an army of them once president.
Doesn't he already have a legal team? He's always suing or threatening to sue someone or doing business deals or declaring bankruptcy or setting up legal structures to protect assets and avoid taxes, etc.
-
He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?
If he did that he may have a shot at my vote :)
Stay tuned! He may not use the C word but I bet he comes very close to insinuating that. Something along the lines of prostituting herself to the highest bidder I'm guessing.
Looks like she is toast anyway. And just imagine a 73 year old, super pro Israel, clueless socialist up against Trump. Would have been cool to see Ron Paul go against Sanders.
My guess in that Biden is waiting in the wings for Hillary to implode. I just saw a video of her saying she did nothing wrong followed by an FBI investigator saying they were taking this case seriously.
Apparently the Democrats have no minority people to run. Appears to be the party of rich old white people while the Republicans have a diverse group including 2 people who appear to be Hispanic, a southern state Governor of Indian heritage and a person of color doing well in 2nd place.
I hear Jeb only attracts people over age 60 to his 30 person rallies though.
-
I actually LIKE Biden. I disagree with him on many/most issues, but he's at least a likeable guy. Can't hate a dude who gives a graduation speech that includes a line about Porsches vs. Corvettes!
-
He could say Hillary is a C and pick up 5 points I guess?
If he did that he may have a shot at my vote :)
Stay tuned! He may not use the C word but I bet he comes very close to insinuating that. Something along the lines of prostituting herself to the highest bidder I'm guessing.
Looks like she is toast anyway.
...
I, like the women profiled in this article (http://www.theonion.com/article/female-trump-supporters-just-feel-more-comfortable-51166), would love to hear Trump call Hilary the C word or 'prostitute', because genitalia and promiscuity are critical touchstones in American political discourse... well, when women get involved in any case.
At least Trump calls it like he sees it!
Female Trump Supporters Just Feel More Comfortable With GOP Candidate Who’s Openly Horrible To Them (http://www.theonion.com/article/female-trump-supporters-just-feel-more-comfortable-51166)
-
I actually LIKE Biden. I disagree with him on many/most issues, but he's at least a likeable guy. Can't hate a dude who gives a graduation speech that includes a line about Porsches vs. Corvettes!
Read his Car And Driver interview from a few years back. It's great.
-
While reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that voting is of less actual value than, say, betting ahead of time on next years college football season. It's all for water cooler chat. You can play the civic duty card till the cows come home but your time voting is better spent elsewhere. It makes no difference.
-
While reading this thread, I've come to the conclusion that voting is of less actual value than, say, betting ahead of time on next years college football season. It's all for water cooler chat. You can play the civic duty card till the cows come home but your time voting is better spent elsewhere. It makes no difference.
If you're talking about the Presidential race, I agree with you. The real power of voting is in local offices -- mayor, City Council, state senate. It's a pity nobody pays nearly as much attention to those. I would argue that the average urban school board member affects his or her constituency far more than the President does.
-
Maybe I'm wrong, but the usual argument to overturn birthright citizenship is in cases where the parents are not in the country legally. It would have no effect on Rubio's citizenship because his parents were not here illegally. I think this is a nuance lost in the soundbite wars.
I really like this idea. If it's applied retroactively, all white people in the US would lose citizenship . . . since they are all the anchor baby offspring of people who illegally invaded native land.
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
-
Heck, read all of the Onion articles about Biden. He's great.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
Well, except the gang bangers and other criminals living in said cities.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
Well, except the gang bangers and other criminals living in said cities.
I was counting them. After all, these are my people....
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIXhZd5VPzUAwa8snIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZjF2ZHFmBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDNw--?p=Machine+Gun+Shoot&vid=ab44d5b8d802e4b7640c781bfda1b8a9&turl=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DWN.I5EQ%252f3s9R3TmRLpWOosGPg%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D168%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DzgDsUXQWcxo&tit=The+Knob+Creek+Machine+Gun+Shoot&c=6&h=168&w=300&l=237&sigr=11bt4smmt&sigt=110eu0d13&sigi=12nn85nig&age=1412555395&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla&tt=b
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
Meh. I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
Meh. I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.
Maybe one summer of Mosquito's, but I personally find the winter of Canada one of the big draws...
Of course, here in Chicago in the winter I can often be found playing hockey outside in jeans and a T-shirt.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
Meh. I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.
Maybe one summer of Mosquito's, but I personally find the winter of Canada one of the big draws...
Of course, here in Chicago in the winter I can often be found playing hockey outside in jeans and a T-shirt.
Spend February in northern Manitoba, and you'll cure yourself of that pretty quickly.
-
We'd just move to Canada and take over.
Because the native people of Canada were issuing legal immigration permits while the native people of America were not?
No. Take over by conquest.
After all, we are a lot better armed.
We? I know individuals better armed than entire cities in Canada!
Meh. I give you invaders one winter before you pack up and head home.
We are a wiser invader than the French, Austrian-Hungarians or Germans trying to conquer Russia leading into Winter. We'd just invade every spring, and then invade the Gulf islands each Autumn.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
Chris implied it. Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both. Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
Chris implied it. Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both. Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.
Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
Chris implied it. Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both. Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.
Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait
If the poll were of Florida or Pennsylvania, that would be more interesting. It would still be incredibly premature and likely to be significantly different 15 months from now, but more interesting than a tiny little state that has a culture pretty different from the rest of the country.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
Chris implied it. Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both. Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.
Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait
Exactly.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
Chris implied it. Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both. Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.
Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait
If the poll were of Florida or Pennsylvania, that would be more interesting. It would still be incredibly premature and likely to be significantly different 15 months from now, but more interesting than a tiny little state that has a culture pretty different from the rest of the country.
How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state. John Kasich is beating everyone in Ohio.
But for now becoming the GOP candidate is what matters for him so New Hampshire is more important
-
How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.
13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.
;)
-
How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.
13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.
;)
I was slightly mistaken, let me rephrase, no president has been elected without winning ohio since 1960.
-
John Kasich is the only republican candidate beating Hillary Clinton in a head to head poll in New Hampshire. #KasichforUs
Those 4 electoral votes are key to the presidency.
The NH primary, like Iowa, is a key to getting the nomination.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
The NH primary doesn't pit Kasich against Clinton.
Or are you being obtuse intentionally?
No one said it would.
Chris implied it. Your comment was interesting, forummm's was questioning the overall relevance of your comment, and Chris completely missed the point of both. Any poll of Kasich vs Clinton in NH is irrelevant to the primary, which was the focus of Chris's comment.
Oh I forgot, people don't care about electing candidates than can win against the other party. Oh wait
If the poll were of Florida or Pennsylvania, that would be more interesting. It would still be incredibly premature and likely to be significantly different 15 months from now, but more interesting than a tiny little state that has a culture pretty different from the rest of the country.
How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state. John Kasich is beating everyone in Ohio.
But for now becoming the GOP candidate is what matters for him so New Hampshire is more important
Yes, NH vs the other Republicans. Not NH vs Clinton--unless she's changed parties recently.
-
How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.
13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.
;)
I was slightly mistaken, let me rephrase, no president has been elected without winning ohio since 1960.
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
-
How about Ohio? No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, a crucial swing state.
George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson's first term, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, James Buchanan, Grover Cleveland (twice), FDR, and Kennedy.
13 out of 57 or 22.8% of all elections. 10 out of 53 or 18.8% of all elections after Ohio became a state.
;)
I was slightly mistaken, let me rephrase, no president has been elected without winning ohio since 1960.
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
lol good one
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
You probably also believe in the 3rd explosion
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
You probably also believe in the 3rd explosion
Never heard of it.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
You probably also believe in the 3rd explosion
Never heard of it.
It's yet another conspiracy theory
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Mostly I was joking. It's definitely very ambiguous who would have won if every vote had been counted because there were so many different standards that could have been used. Ironically, if Gore had won the SCOTUS decision he would have lost Florida. If a wider recount had been done and some of the disputed ballots were counted under some rules he could have won (the AP study you are linking to a summary for says this too). But Gore asked for the wrong recount, and that's how things go.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.
Right. But I don't see how winning by one never-used standard, and losing by all used and proposed standards, leads to the conclusion that Gore won.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Mostly I was joking. It's definitely very ambiguous who would have won if every vote had been counted because there were so many different standards that could have been used. Ironically, if Gore had won the SCOTUS decision he would have lost Florida. If a wider recount had been done and some of the disputed ballots were counted under some rules he could have won (the AP study you are linking to a summary for says this too). But Gore asked for the wrong recount, and that's how things go.
Okay, thanks. I've just seen this so much recently that I was wondering if I had missed some new study or something.
-
Well, this should be an absolute shitshow of word salad: Sarah Palin to interview Donald Trump, Jeb Bush
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/08/sarah-palin-donald-trump-interview-2016-election-213134 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/08/sarah-palin-donald-trump-interview-2016-election-213134)
Or, as Palin announced on her fb page:
WTH, LAMESTREAM MEDIA! STAY OUT OF MY BIBLE
WTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual "gotchas" that they'd NEVER ask Hillary, or they'd feed the question to her and/or liberal cohorts before they asked it on-air (we know how these things work, lapdog media... the public's on to you), so good on Trump for screwing with the reporter. By the way, even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn't want to answer the guy's question either... it's none of his business; it IS personal; what the heck does it have to do with serving as commander-in-chief; and these reporters trying to trip up conservatives can go pound sand until they ask the same things of their favored liberal pals. I'll cover this in my interview with Donald Trump and other candidates tonight on the One America News Network show "On Point." The more the media does this, the more they empower America to reject them and their bias as voters run to the anti-status quo candidates daring to Go Rogue.
http://www.patheos.com/…/dear-media-donald-trump-does-not-…/
- Sarah Palin
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.
Right. But I don't see how winning by one never-used standard, and losing by all used and proposed standards, leads to the conclusion that Gore won.
I would think that with any election that all votes should be counted, even if that's not something a candidate asked for. Of course, the machines should also work so that they are free from error, and the intent of the voter is perfectly captured. And people shouldn't have been purged from the voter rolls for no valid reason just because political figures want to keep certain people from voting for the other party. Unfortunately all 3 of those things happened in the wrong direction, and many voters/potential voters were disenfranchised.
-
Gore was elected in 2000 without winning Ohio.
That is a subtlety that I don't think will be appreciated in this context.
popular vote doesn't matter, electoral votes do.
What matters is whether votes are allowed to be counted to correctly determine the winner of those electoral votes.
I've seen people say that Gore should have won the electoral vote a lot recently, or that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the election. But every study I've seen that counted ballots showed that Bush would have won Florida, and the electoral college, and the presidency, using any standard that was under discussion at the time. Am I missing something?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/
Something that was mentioned in your link:
On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide.
Right. But I don't see how winning by one never-used standard, and losing by all used and proposed standards, leads to the conclusion that Gore won.
I would think that with any election that all votes should be counted, even if that's not something a candidate asked for. Of course, the machines should also work so that they are free from error, and the intent of the voter is perfectly captured. And people shouldn't have been purged from the voter rolls for no valid reason just because political figures want to keep certain people from voting for the other party. Unfortunately all 3 of those things happened in the wrong direction, and many voters/potential voters were disenfranchised.
And all ballots should be clearly designed so they don't cause people to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan.
-
While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population. Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote. I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.
-
While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population. Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote. I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.
This would be cool, I'd love to vote for someone who wanted to reduce spending(especially on military and socialist programs), move some federal rights to the states, not try to take away our guns or limit any of our gun rights, add an environmental impact tax, also is pro choice, and okay with gay marriage. However, sadly in our political system, all of the candidates are going to have stances similar to their party on most things probably for as long as I live. :(
-
While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population. Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote. I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.
This would be cool, I'd love to vote for someone who wanted to reduce spending(especially on military and socialist programs), move some federal rights to the states, not try to take away our guns or limit any of our gun rights, add an environmental impact tax, also is pro choice, and okay with gay marriage. However, sadly in our political system, all of the candidates are going to have stances similar to their party on most things probably for as long as I live. :(
Which is why I vote in national elections because I view it as a duty of citizenship, but I really only care about local and maybe state ballots. How delicious it was to vote down the ability of the town council to set up redevelopment districts (AKA hand my money to sleazy developers) in a special ballot where the outside dirty money was roughly 15 to 1 vs. the grass roots opposition!
-
While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population. Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote. I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.
Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones. Worse than already occurs. Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.
-
Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones. Worse than already occurs. Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.
You say all of that as if you believe that representing states is more important than representing the people who live in them.
By that logic, can I please divide my state up into 50 new states (each about the size of Rhode Island) so that we can have a greater voice in congress? Seems just as fair as what we currently have, with one corner of the country full of tiny states and one full of big ones. Why should artificially drawn state sizes give more power to people who drew their lines around smaller areas?
What kind of democracy is that? And don't go telling me about the house of representatives, it's ALSO horribly lopsided in favor of small states. Just count up the number of reps per capita in California vs Rhode Island or Wyoming.
-
Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones. Worse than already occurs. Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.
You say all of that as if you believe that representing states is more important than representing the people who live in them.
By that logic, can I please divide my state up into 50 new states (each about the size of Rhode Island) so that we can have a greater voice in congress?
You could until the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 forced Congress to a fixed number of representatives, instead of the number of representatives being decided by population. I'd have no problem with it, myself
What kind of democracy is that?
The US is a representative republic, not a democracy. Proportional representation is a characteristic of a representative democracy, as such is common in European parlimentary systems. The US was never (originally) intended to be a democracy, either; although there have been amendments specificly written to increase our similarity to a democracy, such as the Seventeenth Amendment. Whether or not this is a good thing is another conversation.
And don't go telling me about the house of representatives, it's ALSO horribly lopsided in favor of small states. Just count up the number of reps per capita in California vs Rhode Island or Wyoming.
That is a direct result of fixing the number of representatives in congress.
-
That is a direct result of fixing the number of representatives in congress.
I wasn't arguing the reasons behind it, merely highlighting that both houses of congress give more voting power to the people in small states than in large ones. And then commenting that this seems somewhat unfair.
-
That is a direct result of fixing the number of representatives in congress.
I want arguing the reasons behind it, merely highlighting that both houses of congress give more voting power to the people in small states than in large ones. And then commenting that this seems somewhat unfair.
This doesn't really parse, Sol. But if you are trying to argue that the imbalances of 'voter influence' is unfair, I do not disagree. However, coming from the perspective of a realist, fairness is irrelevant to the law. We have had this particular discussion before. I'm not talking about what should be, only what actually is. Likewise, any new change to how the electoral process works will benefit some people and harm others. Even fairness is relative to the observer.
-
Unfortunately, this would also lead towards pandering to the desires of urban areas over less populated counties, as well as pandering towards more populous states over less populous ones. Worse than already occurs. Granted, our electoral college system has it's flaws, but it works well to maintain a 'minority' state a voice in the federal government.
That's the effect here in New York; statewide elections are decided entirely by New York City, owing to the gigantic population differential between that area and the rest of the state. Take a look at the last gubernatorial election. Governor Cuomo only won a handful of counties, but they were the ones with cities in them.
-
That's the effect here in New York; statewide elections are decided entirely by New York City, owing to the gigantic population differential between that area and the rest of the state. Take a look at the last gubernatorial election. Governor Cuomo only won a handful of counties, but they were the ones with cities in them.
New York State government is a microcosm of the same issue sol is complaining about at the national level. If anything, NYC's population is even more disproportionately underrepresented in the NY state legislature than populous states are in the federal legislature. That explains why NYC receives less than its pro rata share of state funding based on its share of the state's population (and staggeringly less based on its share of the state's revenue-generation).
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/us/politics/christie-proposes-immigrant-tracker-similar-to-fedex.html
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Saturday that if he were elected president he would combat illegal immigration by creating a system to track foreign visitors the way FedEx tracks packages.
...he would ask the chief executive of FedEx, Frederick W. Smith, to devise the tracking system.
“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.”
I guess we could give them all ankle bracelets like felons on parole. Or dog collars maybe. Or maybe tag their ears like we do with animals. And we could install a huge network of receptors around the country to track where people were. But of course, the person could just remove the tracking device somehow. So we'd probably want to make it explode instantly if it's removed. Just to be safe.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/us/politics/christie-proposes-immigrant-tracker-similar-to-fedex.html
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Saturday that if he were elected president he would combat illegal immigration by creating a system to track foreign visitors the way FedEx tracks packages.
...he would ask the chief executive of FedEx, Frederick W. Smith, to devise the tracking system.
“At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It’s on the truck. It’s at the station. It’s on the airplane,” Mr. Christie told the crowd in Laconia, N.H. “Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them.”
I guess we could give them all ankle bracelets like felons on parole. Or dog collars maybe. Or maybe tag their ears like we do with animals. And we could install a huge network of receptors around the country to track where people were. But of course, the person could just remove the tracking device somehow. So we'd probably want to make it explode instantly if it's removed. Just to be safe.
*sigh* Battle Royale is such a great movie.
-
While we're discussing fantasies . . . I'm kinda a fan of representation by population. Every vote should count, it shouldn't only be a race for certain areas where there's a close vote. I think this would lean towards more centrist candidates in elections.
This would be cool, I'd love to vote for someone who wanted to reduce spending(especially on military and socialist programs), move some federal rights to the states, not try to take away our guns or limit any of our gun rights, add an environmental impact tax, also is pro choice, and okay with gay marriage. However, sadly in our political system, all of the candidates are going to have stances similar to their party on most things probably for as long as I live. :(
I think Gary Johnson is planning to run again for the Libertarian party, I'm pretty sure his views align with almost all of the positions you've indicated, with the added benefit (IMO) of generally adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy (since "blowback" is a bitch). Not sure where he would stand on an environmental impact tax, but I like the idea in principle.
While I'm thinking about it, conservatives (well, Republicans at least) get bad optics for supporting policies that don't seem like good stewardship of our environment, in the name of laissez-faire economics. The "impact tax" mentioned above seems like a simple way to counteract the "tragedy of the commons" that deregulated markets might create for the environment; are there other ways that conservatives might address this without more of that pesky burdensome regulation industry detests?
In general, I think there ought to be a little more "conserve" in "conservative". IIRC, Republicans had a substantial role in creating our National Parks as we know them, and we find ourselves now in a time when that same party wants to drill for oil in them.
-
So, I bit. FB friend posted his support for BS with an instanet meme, and one of his friends replied with some Ayn Rand aphorisms. I've grown weary of these abstracted idealogical torpedos, so what'd I do? I proposed we go blow by blow through BS's platform. I entered each topic in FB replies, then for each proposed action, I nested comments with my thoughts. I'd wanted to cull through his proposals anyway, so thought why not?
In the end, I was surprised to find I agreed with BS more than I disagreed. Some examples:
YES! stop for-private prisons, end war on drugs, invest in infrastructure, regulation of derivatives markets, etc.
"MEH / Maybes": estate tax - I've no problem with this in principle, but how about we raise it to a higher threshold so there's no chance it'll ever apply to me (yes, seriously!). Also, he's too gung ho for putting young people to work on government projects. I'd rather take the long view and invest seriously in education / fix schools.
NOs: $15 nationwide min wage, banning big bonuses, capping cc interest at 15%. I sympathize with the intentions here, but pushing on the market in one place just bulges it out in another.
Those are some example points I posted. The response? Crickets chirping. Even the orig poster slowly backed away. Was it TMI? Was I being 'crazy FB friend'? In any case, I have a much better idea of what BS will try to do if put in office. Not that he'll be able to do any of it.
Wow, politics SUCKS. At least in the US it's mostly lying, pandering, behind the scenes deals, conflicts of interest or something with a cigar and blue dress in an office with curved walls, I don't know the details. Here in Malaysia, the opposition leader is in jail on sodomy charges, entire web news sites have been banned, accidental deaths occur on occasion, and $700M was found to have been transferred to the PM's personal account from a development fund. This weekend, the government has gone so far as to ban yellow t-shirts (http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/so-bersih-4-tees-banned-no-problem-just-use-bersih-4.0-maria-chin-tells-pro) with the words Bersih-4 (it's the protest slogan for cleaning up gov't).
So, uh, you/me, we got it good kids.
-
"MEH / Maybes": estate tax - I've no problem with this in principle, but how about we raise it to a higher threshold so there's no chance it'll ever apply to me (yes, seriously!). Also, he's too gung ho for putting young people to work on government projects. I'd rather take the long view and invest seriously in education / fix schools.
The exemption is currently about $11 million for a couple ($5.43 million per spouse) and adjusted for inflation each year. And then the tax is only applied to the amount over that threshold. So if your estate was $12 million, the tax would be on the $1.14 portion. What do you think the right exemption level should be?
-
"MEH / Maybes": estate tax - I've no problem with this in principle, but how about we raise it to a higher threshold so there's no chance it'll ever apply to me (yes, seriously!). Also, he's too gung ho for putting young people to work on government projects. I'd rather take the long view and invest seriously in education / fix schools.
The exemption is currently about $11 million for a couple ($5.43 million per spouse) and adjusted for inflation each year. And then the tax is only applied to the amount over that threshold. So if your estate was $12 million, the tax would be on the $1.14 portion. What do you think the right exemption level should be?
I'm fine with the current levels. Bernie Sanders proposes $3.5M. Although, now that I'm re-reading it, it may not be an estate tax on all inheritances. Here is the language on his website: "He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million." I'm not sure how .3% is calculated - by wealth or by income.
-
Now I'm wondering where I am on that spectrum. By either method, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the .3%.
-
Now I'm wondering where I am on that spectrum. By either method, I'm pretty sure I'm not in the .3%.
The 0.3% is almost certainly a rhetorical flourish to point out how they're only targeting a small minority of people for the tax increase. Certainly the size of the inheritance, and not the exclusivity of one's home yacht club, would be the determining factor. Though of course I've severely exaggerated the spending power of $3.5million, or I just think you'd have to be crazy to put any of that money in the direction of a yacht, when $3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.
-
$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.
And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!
-
$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.
And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!
I couldn't agree more. I'd much rather take my dad's Walker Bay dinghy out for a sail in Roche Harbor (It's maybe 12' long) than own AND MAINTAIN a 200' yacht.
The .3% might be a rhetorical flourish, and that's annoying. As someone who has read more than her fair share of IRS.gov, I can tell you that flowery language in proposed legislation is not appreciated.
Using http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth (http://www.globalrichlist.com/wealth), er, uh. Wealthometer.org - er uh, I esp like how that site ends on a page that shows what our 'wealth tax' would be if we supported adding such a thing. Uh, no thanks?
Anyway, back to presidential elections: Scott Walker's Terrible Personal Financial Management (http://www.nationaljournal.com/twentysixteen/2015/08/03/scott-walker-is-paying-27-24-percent-interest-10-000-plus-credit-card-debt) . source: samusuguru posted in Antimustachian Hall of Shame and Comedy.
-
This just in Ben Carson ties Trump in Iowa poll.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Monmouth-University-Monmouth-Poll/2015/08/31/id/672824/
Those freaking racist Republicans are up to it again! lol
-
$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.
And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!
Exactly, it IS an adventure, which is great IF that's what you're looking for. It's hard to just cruise around an relax sailing a small boat, you're constantly doing something, because any body of water large enough to have decent wind is also going to have chop, etc. On a larger boat you are more able to sit back and relax, if that's what you want.
-Guy who likes sailing all sorts of stuff, and has sailed everything from 10' sunfish to 80'+ yachts, but the only thing I owned was a 14' Hobie Cat
-
$3000 dinghies are so much more fun to sail.
And a $300 dinghy is a downright adventure!
Exactly, it IS an adventure, which is great IF that's what you're looking for. It's hard to just cruise around an relax sailing a small boat, you're constantly doing something, because any body of water large enough to have decent wind is also going to have chop, etc. On a larger boat you are more able to sit back and relax, if that's what you want.
-Guy who likes sailing all sorts of stuff, and has sailed everything from 10' sunfish to 80'+ yachts, but the only thing I owned was a 14' Hobie Cat
I like jet boats, and yes I know it's unmustachian
-
While I'm thinking about it, conservatives (well, Republicans at least) get bad optics for supporting policies that don't seem like good stewardship of our environment, in the name of laissez-faire economics. The "impact tax" mentioned above seems like a simple way to counteract the "tragedy of the commons" that deregulated markets might create for the environment; are there other ways that conservatives might address this without more of that pesky burdensome regulation industry detests?
In general, I think there ought to be a little more "conserve" in "conservative". IIRC, Republicans had a substantial role in creating our National Parks as we know them, and we find ourselves now in a time when that same party wants to drill for oil in them.
When you say get bad optics, are you suggesting that it is not a fair accusation (that current republicans/republican leadership tend not to be good stewards of the environment)? A lot of environmental problems stem from the fact that they are externalities. So by definition, a "free market" won't account for them and we end up with an inefficient allocation of goods. Interestingly though, we are seeing more and more businesses take a proactive step towards some of these environmental issues that we might not have seen 10-20 years ago. There is a growing consensus among a significant number of business leaders that a carbon pricing mechanism is needed, for instance.
Regarding your point about the conserve in conservative, I agree. I am also often surprised that the environmental movement is not stronger among religious communities, though maybe this has started to shift some (especially with Pope Francis)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/nyregion/condemned-and-praised-by-trump.html
Recount of something 18 years ago where Trump did some Trump-like stuff visiting an NYC school. He called the author a "proven loser" publicly and then privately told him he was "the best". The phrases he uses and mannerisms sound exactly like today.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/nyregion/condemned-and-praised-by-trump.html
Recount of something 18 years ago where Trump did some Trump-like stuff visiting an NYC school. He called the author a "proven loser" publicly and then privately told him he was "the best". The phrases he uses and mannerisms sound exactly like today.
Trump's very in-the-moment. So much so that previous moments have no bearing on current behavior. He's a zen master!
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist. Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school.
I just go with some people just separate their lives. Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist. Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school.
I just go with some people just separate their lives. Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.
Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well. As I assume all the Republicans are? http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time? I mean how can anyone defend that shit? Makes them look bat shit crazy.
Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda. They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.
Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says -- "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build, I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible." If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history. Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.
Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner, the earth has been hot before man was here"
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist. Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school.
I just go with some people just separate their lives. Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.
Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well. As I assume all the Republicans are? http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time? I mean how can anyone defend that shit? Makes them look bat shit crazy.
Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda. They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.
Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says -- "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build, I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible." If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history. Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.
Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner, the earth has been hot before man was here"
Part of the climate change issue is that Dems usually fall into one of two camps, either they already live the way they want others to live (in densely populated areas, little driving, lots of reliance on public transportation, etc) or they are rich and live lavishly and want to tell OTHERS to live in densely populated areas with little driving, etc etc (see Gore and other Limousine Liberals). Most people on the right don't want to live that way, so they don't want to hear others tell them to.
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist. Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school.
I just go with some people just separate their lives. Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.
Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well. As I assume all the Republicans are? http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time? I mean how can anyone defend that shit? Makes them look bat shit crazy.
Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda. They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.
Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says -- "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build, I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible." If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history. Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.
Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner, the earth has been hot before man was here"
Um, that throws out their playbook then. They would be joining the dems. How many job bills were proposed when the GOP got control of Congress? What fiscally conservative things have come from the GOP in the last 20 years? Because fiscal conservative does not mean dropping taxes, it means balancing the budget.
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist. Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school.
I just go with some people just separate their lives. Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.
Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well. As I assume all the Republicans are? http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time? I mean how can anyone defend that shit? Makes them look bat shit crazy.
Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda. They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.
Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says -- "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build, I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible." If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history. Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.
Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner, the earth has been hot before man was here"
Um, that throws out their playbook then. They would be joining the dems. How many job bills were proposed when the GOP got control of Congress? What fiscally conservative things have come from the GOP in the last 20 years? Because fiscal conservative does not mean dropping taxes, it means balancing the budget.
quote from the net ----
"The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
- Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate."
So it hasn't been 20 years but 14. It was the Bush congress tax cuts that totally fucked us. The Republicans should get total credit for the surplus years because they controlled the Senate and House of Reps and Gingrich fought like an SOB to roll Clinton over. Those bodies hold the purse strings and submit the budget. Not the President. The Pubs should also have 78% credit for screwing us the last 14 years and continuing to redistribute money from the working class to the capitol class.
Imagine how different the country would be had we continued on the balanced budget path? The US debt would be something like 3T instead of close to 20T. That would mean we could borrow 10T in the next 4 years to completely build out a total solar/wind/electric car paradigm, end carbon emissions and employ 6 million in clean energy fields. Net worth disparity would be much closer and the economy would be humming along with lots of money moving around the US and not being exported via Exxon Mobile to foreign countries.
That could be our future in another 15 years if we can get our shit together. I'm beginning to think the Elon Musk matters way more than the President at this point. He is not only changing our energy policy before our very eyes he is actually able to launch people into space (something the US can't do) and envisioning sending people to live on Mars.
Musk+Uber+Google=Energy Independence+great economy
-
Let's talk Ben Carson ---- I know so little about him other than he may be in the fundamentalist global climate change is a hoax wing of the party. It seems ironic to me that a man of science would be an Evangelical Christian at the same time. I'm sure there are many that are but it seems like a mutually exclusive concept to me.
So yeah, Carson --- He may win in Iowa -- What are the thoughts on him?
One the cardiology PhD's at my university was a creationist. Listening to the aggressive atheist professor and him get in to it was literally some of my most amusing times in grad school.
I just go with some people just separate their lives. Obviously Carson is no longer doing such.
Sadly Trump is apparently in the deniers group as well. As I assume all the Republicans are? http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/photos/7-surprising-global-warming-deniers/donald-trump
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
Perhaps Trump will change his tune on this come general election time? I mean how can anyone defend that shit? Makes them look bat shit crazy.
Damn the oil companies have sure done a great job on promoting the climate change is not real agenda. They have the greatest PR ever in that regard.
Hoping for the day that a Republican comes out and says -- "We need as much solar and wind power as we can build, I don't give a rats ass about gays, I love Hispanics but hate Illegal aliens and abortion should be legal and as infrequent as possible." If the Republicans added that to their play book the Democrats would be history. Unfortunately they can't get through their freaking primary processes saying rational shit.
Instead they gotta say shit like "Hate the sin but not the sinner, the earth has been hot before man was here"
Um, that throws out their playbook then. They would be joining the dems. How many job bills were proposed when the GOP got control of Congress? What fiscally conservative things have come from the GOP in the last 20 years? Because fiscal conservative does not mean dropping taxes, it means balancing the budget.
quote from the net ----
"The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.
- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.
- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.
- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since. The deficit is projected to increase substantially this year under President Barack Obama.
- Republicans say they should get at least some of the credit for the balanced budgets during the Clinton administration, because Republican majorities controlled both the House and Senate."
So it hasn't been 20 years but 14. It was the Bush congress tax cuts that totally fucked us. The Republicans should get total credit for the surplus years because they controlled the Senate and House of Reps and Gingrich fought like an SOB to roll Clinton over. Those bodies hold the purse strings and submit the budget. Not the President. The Pubs should also have 78% credit for screwing us the last 14 years and continuing to redistribute money from the working class to the capitol class.
Imagine how different the country would be had we continued on the balanced budget path? The US debt would be something like 3T instead of close to 20T. That would mean we could borrow 10T in the next 4 years to completely build out a total solar/wind/electric car paradigm, end carbon emissions and employ 6 million in clean energy fields. Net worth disparity would be much closer and the economy would be humming along with lots of money moving around the US and not being exported via Exxon Mobile to foreign countries.
That could be our future in another 15 years if we can get our shit together. I'm beginning to think the Elon Musk matters way more than the President at this point. He is not only changing our energy policy before our very eyes he is actually able to launch people into space (something the US can't do) and envisioning sending people to live on Mars.
Musk+Uber+Google=Energy Independence+great economy
Clintons budget request was a deficit, the house budget committee headed by John Kasich(the chief architect) did a massive overhaul and balanced the budget, Clinton merely signed it. I don't understand why you would want to get a 10T loan to pay for our energy infrastructure? We would then have to pay interest on that loan. It's no different than a person that's got a 10k car loan out but then decides, I think i'll take out a 30k personal loan to buy solar panels. Also, Wind Energy is shit. It's all about Nuclear and Solar. Of course retaining/maintaining what wind/hydro power we have is good too though, but not building any new wind.
-
Well you take out the loan because A. the US literally prints money B. you have to pay for the sustainable infrastructure somehow. C. You immediately cut your trade deficit to near zero (without energy imports and exporting shit loads of oil) and your dollar suddenly becomes more valuable. Probably costs way more than 10t though.
Your correct about Clinton. He rolled over on the budget. The balanced budget was a Republican thing right up until they fucked us with the Bush tax cuts. They are wily bastards and you got to watch them. JK did a great job by the way and I would actually consider voting for him. He'd make a great VP and Trump would definitely carry Ohio with him on board.
-
The late 90s balanced budget was a combo of Clinton, Congress, and an insanely overinflated asset bubble that drenched the budget in CG taxes.
-
ya the economy was definitely doing good in the late 90's before the tech bubble bursted, I'm sure that helped a lot, but the economy is doing pretty good today as well, I think we can balance the budget again
-
Ha-ha, so true
-
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
-
The late 90s balanced budget was a combo of Clinton, Congress, and an insanely overinflated asset bubble that drenched the budget in CG taxes.
And shell games with the SS general fund.
-
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
. Well the 29% would be correct if they believe Obama. He states he was born in Hawaii. While Hawaii is part of the US (2 years of statehood prior to his birth) I would not consider it part of the American continents, neither north or south. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii People in the rest of America think US people are crazy when they assume the USA is America. People think all sorts if things about Obama, like he didn't attend a racist church for years even after seeing the video of racist rants by his pastor friend. Ted cruze was definitely born in Canada which is part of the american continent.
-
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
. Well the 29% would be correct if they believe Obama. He states he was born in Hawaii. While Hawaii is part of the US (2 years of statehood prior to his birth) I would not consider it part of the American continents, neither north or south. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii People in the rest of America think US people are crazy when they assume the USA is America. People think all sorts if things about Obama, like he didn't attend a racist church for years even after seeing the video of racist rants by his pastor friend. Ted cruze was definitely born in Canada which is part of the american continent.
Bob, that is a willful misreading of the question and replies. The text of the question asked is
(Republicans) Do you think Barack Obama
was born in the United States?
The follow up questions indicate that the persons polled have a factual misunderstanding of the president. We can argue about if the poll is representative/accurate, but let's at least keep it on track. Here's the info on how the poll was conducted:
Public Policy Polling surveyed 572 usual Republi
can primary voters and 545 usual Democratic
primary voters from August 28
th
to 30th. The margin of error
for the Republicans is +/-4.1% and
for the Democrats it’s +/-4.2%. 80% of partic
ipants responded via the phone, while 20% of
respondents who did not have landlines c
onducted the survey over the internet.
-
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
This is a fascinating poll. My favorite tidbit - only 3% of Tea Party supporters believe Obama is Christian, while 73% believe Obama is Muslim.
That's a nice indication of how out of touch with reality the Tea Party is.
-
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
This is a fascinating poll. My favorite tidbit - only 3% of Tea Party supporters believe Obama is Christian, while 73% believe Obama is Muslim.
That's a nice indication of how out of touch with reality the Tea Party is.
And the power of the various media outlets they listen to.
-
That's a nice indication of how out of touch with reality the Tea Party is.
It's not exactly hard to find these indications.
-
I'm not sure what's dumber, believing Obama was born outside the US, or continuing the fight into the end of his 7th year as President. Come on guys, let it go.
-
I'm not sure what's dumber, believing Obama was born outside the US, or continuing the fight into the end of his 7th year as President. Come on guys, let it go.
I always wonder what the plan is. Like, if a week or two into 2017 the President goes on TV and says "You're right, I was born in Kenya, peace out!", what are the birthers going to do about it?
-
Listened to Hanity today, and while he was out, a guest speaker had Cruze on, and he was talking normal speak until he decided to bring up that judge lady who went to jail for not doing her job. Cruze was defending her solely due to religion, which reaks of a blind, close minded leader to me, especially when she was in the wrong.
-
If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?
The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue. Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter. His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen. That fact, alone, is enough. There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth. Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that. McCain was born in Panama. Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed. Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently. It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.
IANAL
-
While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz. Sorry US. We dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for taking them off our hands.
-
While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz. Sorry US. We dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for taking them off our hands.
We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....
-
While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz. Sorry US. We dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for taking them off our hands.
Don't forget Celine Dion.
-
Listened to Hanity today
Well there's your problem.
If you're conservative or looking for a conservative perspective, at least listen to someone who's fact based and not a blatantly dishonest propagandist.
If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?
The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue. Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter. His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen. That fact, alone, is enough. There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth. Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that. McCain was born in Panama. Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed. Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently. It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.
IANAL
When McCain was running for president (and Obama and Hilary were too), Obama and Hilary co-sponsored a Senate resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511) stating that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States
It passed with unanimous consent. I always thought that was a super classy thing to do.
Strange that, given all the crazy birthers, the Republicans didn't pass something similar about Obama...
-
Listened to Hanity today
Well there's your problem.
If you're conservative or looking for a conservative perspective, at least listen to someone who's fact based and not a blatantly dishonest propagandist.
If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?
The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue. Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter. His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen. That fact, alone, is enough. There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth. Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that. McCain was born in Panama. Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed. Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently. It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.
IANAL
When McCain was running for president (and Obama and Hilary were too), Obama and Hilary co-sponsored a Senate resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511) stating that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States
It passed with unanimous consent. I always thought that was a super classy thing to do.
Strange that, given all the crazy birthers, the Republicans didn't pass something similar about Obama...
Because they would have lost support from their base by doing so.
-
Listened to Hanity today
Well there's your problem.
If you're conservative or looking for a conservative perspective, at least listen to someone who's fact based and not a blatantly dishonest propagandist.
If the birthers are correct, wouldn't that automatically invalidate all Obama's "accomplishments" since they weren't signed legally?
The question is untested, but the likely result, if it could be proven, is that the SCOTUS would still have to rule on the issue. Even the term "natural born" is subject to interpretation, but even if Obama really was born in Kenya it wouldn't matter. His mother was, irrefutablely, a US citizen with the obvious intention of raising her son as a US citizen. That fact, alone, is enough. There is no doubt that Obama didn't need to be 'naturalized', which has always been a term that referred to cultural intergreation moreso than a simple fact of geographical location upon the event of birth. Likewise, the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is irrelevant for the qualifications of the presidency, and everyone who knows anything about it already knew that. McCain was born in Panama. Chester A. Arthur was probably born in Canada where his parents lived at the time, and not in Fairfield Vermont as is claimed. Saying Vermont simply removed the political challenge from issue, but it's also inarguable that Arthur grew up in the States, and couldn't have known differently. It's also inarguable that his mother, just like Obama, was an irrefutable US citizen; even while his father was, likewise, an adult immigrant.
IANAL
When McCain was running for president (and Obama and Hilary were too), Obama and Hilary co-sponsored a Senate resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511) stating that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen'' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States
It passed with unanimous consent. I always thought that was a super classy thing to do.
Strange that, given all the crazy birthers, the Republicans didn't pass something similar about Obama...
Because they would have lost support from their base by doing so.
Not to mention that it was unnecessary, given that Obama was born in Hawaii, and they all freaking know that, whether they'll admit it or not.
-
While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz. Sorry US. We dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for taking them off our hands.
We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i102/Swizzphoto/socialmedia_zps9gtrxjg7.gif)
-
While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz. Sorry US. We dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for taking them off our hands.
We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i102/Swizzphoto/socialmedia_zps9gtrxjg7.gif)
I am watching this over and over, giggling. Thank you for amusing me.
-
While we're on the topic, as a Canadian I'd like to apologize for both Nickleback and Ted Cruz. Sorry US. We dropped the ball on that one. Thanks for taking them off our hands.
We'll take nickleback, if you Bieber back.....
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i102/Swizzphoto/socialmedia_zps9gtrxjg7.gif)
I am watching this over and over, giggling. Thank you for amusing me.
:)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html
It's interesting that Trump is going back to the dog-whistle race-based strategies of prior decades. I didn't expect that. It "makes sense" that he would pursue the race-based appeals against Hispanics because it's a way to tap into racist and xenophobist sentiments that are pretty strong, it can be couched in terms of "illegals" so there's some cover for it, and it's still politically acceptable to be against Hispanics (and Muslims, which I'm sure we'll hear more about from him soon). But the party has slowly moved away from the openly race-baiting "law and order" language recently. I don't think it really helps him to go back there.
Cruz is continuing his strategy of being the Trump torch-bearer. He thinks that Trump will implode at some point and he'll be right there to mop up all of the Trump supporters when that happens. He's been very carefully refraining from criticizing Trump and even praising him, while he also adopts and affirms Trump's positions while using more skillful language (appealing to the same voter motivations but less overtly objectionable/offensive) to describe those positions. He's a very adept politician. If Trump implodes soon enough, he could step right in to the lead. He also has quite a bit of billionaire backing (I think 2nd in fundraising only to Bush on that side).
-
Makes not sense whatsoever. Trump is a smart guy as are most of the Republicans. I realize they depend on Koch brother funding for their campaigns but Trump can do without that nonsense. Seems like he would be the most likely to break from the pack. I'm guessing that 70% of Republican voters either understand climate change or don't put it high up there as a voting criteria.
I think you might be overestimating how connected the Republican base is with reality. I saw a poll today indicating that only 29% of GOP members polled think that President Obama was born in America, while 40% of them think Ted Cruz was.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_90115.pdf
. Well the 29% would be correct if they believe Obama. He states he was born in Hawaii. While Hawaii is part of the US (2 years of statehood prior to his birth) I would not consider it part of the American continents, neither north or south. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii People in the rest of America think US people are crazy when they assume the USA is America. People think all sorts if things about Obama, like he didn't attend a racist church for years even after seeing the video of racist rants by his pastor friend. Ted cruze was definitely born in Canada which is part of the american continent.
Bob, that is a willful misreading of the question and replies. The text of the question asked is
(Republicans) Do you think Barack Obama
was born in the United States?
The follow up questions indicate that the persons polled have a factual misunderstanding of the president. We can argue about if the poll is representative/accurate, but let's at least keep it on track. Here's the info on how the poll was conducted:
Public Policy Polling surveyed 572 usual Republi
can primary voters and 545 usual Democratic
primary voters from August 28
th
to 30th. The margin of error
for the Republicans is +/-4.1% and
for the Democrats it’s +/-4.2%. 80% of partic
ipants responded via the phone, while 20% of
respondents who did not have landlines c
onducted the survey over the internet.
Yeah, I didn't read the link but you stated "Obama born in America" and Hawaii is not located in the Americas. It is a sad point for me that most people who are US citizens fail to realize that their country is the USA and that America is not a country. It is a common error.
It matters not for him as his mama was clearly a US citizen at the time of his birth.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html
It's interesting that Trump is going back to the dog-whistle race-based strategies of prior decades. I didn't expect that. It "makes sense" that he would pursue the race-based appeals against Hispanics because it's a way to tap into racist and xenophobist sentiments that are pretty strong, it can be couched in terms of "illegals" so there's some cover for it, and it's still politically acceptable to be against Hispanics (and Muslims, which I'm sure we'll hear more about from him soon). But the party has slowly moved away from the openly race-baiting "law and order" language recently. I don't think it really helps him to go back there.
Cruz is continuing his strategy of being the Trump torch-bearer. He thinks that Trump will implode at some point and he'll be right there to mop up all of the Trump supporters when that happens. He's been very carefully refraining from criticizing Trump and even praising him, while he also adopts and affirms Trump's positions while using more skillful language (appealing to the same voter motivations but less overtly objectionable/offensive) to describe those positions. He's a very adept politician. If Trump implodes soon enough, he could step right in to the lead. He also has quite a bit of billionaire backing (I think 2nd in fundraising only to Bush on that side).
You know repeating over and over again that Republicans are anymore racists than Democrats has grown as old as the PC bullshit. Please check your data. You can start with looking at the numbers on black people's racism vs. white people.
Trump is married and has been married to immigrants. So he is obviously not anti immigrant. Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists. This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped.
You might also take a look at the Republican field -- A New York Democrat, a man who appears to be black, a woman and two people who claim Hispanic origins are in the thick of it. These are people apparently appealing to that evil Republican base. The Democrat field remains an all old white folks thing. Go figure.
Having a reasonable border policy and enforcement does not a racist make. Of course all the Republicans have sworn allegiance to Israel and are climate change deniers.
At a ground level report of my camping trip this weekend I was interested to find that both couples we camped with were early Trump supporters. Yep, college educated, hard working, smart folks. They weren't the least bit offended by his honesty and lack of PC finesse. Of course we also told dirty jokes, drank beer (in Trump Koozies) and generally had a great time.
And by the way, Trump has only been in this a few months. I think you will see over the next 14 months a cleaner media image. As the discussion unfolds, you may also see the Democrats becoming more realistic and in touch with the voters on immigration and moving towards actually enforcing the law and securing the border.
-
Trump is married and has been married to immigrants. So he is obviously not anti immigrant. Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists. This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped.
Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists. If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.
If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.
-
Trump is married and has been married to immigrants. So he is obviously not anti immigrant. Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists. This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped.
Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists. If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.
If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.
How is what Trump is saying that different than the "culture of rape" crowd that claims every male college student or frat brother is a rapist just waiting to pounce? In both cases there are numerous anecdotes to "prove" the case, but the case is still statistically wrong.
-
Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists. If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.
If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.
Well, somebody's doing the raping. (his words)
-
I believe this is the Trump quote being referred to --
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people"
He has also said we will have a big golden door for Mexican immigrants to apply legally. He has also said that a country without borders is not a country. He stands by his quote because it is entirely accurate.
Nowhere has he inferred race as many fools here do by assuming Mexican citizens are all of a single race origin. In fact the term Hispanic is not a race based term and refers to country of origin and even includes Portuguese speaking people.
You know, just because a person hates Republicans doesn't make them a bad person but hating a whole group of people does kinda strike of a racist type attitude. And I say this as someone who doesn't agree with the Republican agenda.
You can disagree and argue for open borders but you would be wrong and you would be on the wrong side of this issue as the Democrats are quickly learning.
By the time the big dance starts Trump will have finessed and nuanced his statements to appeal to the PC crowd. He will be heavily courting union voters and the Democrat disenfranchised black voters. And when his running mate is a person of Hispanic origin from Florida what will you say then?
It could be a watershed moment in US politics where we elect our first non party or big money sponsored person in my lifetime.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html
It's interesting that Trump is going back to the dog-whistle race-based strategies of prior decades. I didn't expect that. It "makes sense" that he would pursue the race-based appeals against Hispanics because it's a way to tap into racist and xenophobist sentiments that are pretty strong, it can be couched in terms of "illegals" so there's some cover for it, and it's still politically acceptable to be against Hispanics (and Muslims, which I'm sure we'll hear more about from him soon). But the party has slowly moved away from the openly race-baiting "law and order" language recently. I don't think it really helps him to go back there.
Cruz is continuing his strategy of being the Trump torch-bearer. He thinks that Trump will implode at some point and he'll be right there to mop up all of the Trump supporters when that happens. He's been very carefully refraining from criticizing Trump and even praising him, while he also adopts and affirms Trump's positions while using more skillful language (appealing to the same voter motivations but less overtly objectionable/offensive) to describe those positions. He's a very adept politician. If Trump implodes soon enough, he could step right in to the lead. He also has quite a bit of billionaire backing (I think 2nd in fundraising only to Bush on that side).
You know repeating over and over again that Republicans are anymore racists than Democrats has grown as old as the PC bullshit. Please check your data. You can start with looking at the numbers on black people's racism vs. white people.
Trump is married and has been married to immigrants. So he is obviously not anti immigrant. Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists. This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped.
You might also take a look at the Republican field -- A New York Democrat, a man who appears to be black, a woman and two people who claim Hispanic origins are in the thick of it. These are people apparently appealing to that evil Republican base. The Democrat field remains an all old white folks thing. Go figure.
Having a reasonable border policy and enforcement does not a racist make. Of course all the Republicans have sworn allegiance to Israel and are climate change deniers.
At a ground level report of my camping trip this weekend I was interested to find that both couples we camped with were early Trump supporters. Yep, college educated, hard working, smart folks. They weren't the least bit offended by his honesty and lack of PC finesse. Of course we also told dirty jokes, drank beer (in Trump Koozies) and generally had a great time.
And by the way, Trump has only been in this a few months. I think you will see over the next 14 months a cleaner media image. As the discussion unfolds, you may also see the Democrats becoming more realistic and in touch with the voters on immigration and moving towards actually enforcing the law and securing the border.
It seems like you didn't even read what I wrote and just reacted emotionally. Where did I compare racism amongst the political parties? This was only about the specific actions of 2 candidates (out of 127 on that side). Now, one of them happens to be leading by a lot. But that's because of more than just the one issue.
-
Trump is married and has been married to immigrants. So he is obviously not anti immigrant. Trump reported that many Illegal Mexicans crossing the border were rapists. This was based on a publication owned by Univision (you know the Mexican owned media) that reported 80% of women and girls crossing the border were raped.
Saying that many women crossing the border are raped is quite different from saying that illegal Mexicans are all rapists. If Trump can't follow something as straight forward as that distinction, it doesn't bode well for reading comprehension, or a future where presidential decisions must be made based on more nuanced positions.
If Trump can follow that distinction, and instead is cynically using racist language because he knows it appeals to the base that he is targeting . . . it makes him a terrible person.
How is what Trump is saying that different than the "culture of rape" crowd that claims every male college student or frat brother is a rapist just waiting to pounce? In both cases there are numerous anecdotes to "prove" the case, but the case is still statistically wrong.
That is a completely incorrect mischaracterization of those who speak of rape culture. Men are more likely to be raped that be a rapist however, given that rapists are rarely punished those few rapists are responsible for quite a few rapes. The statistics show that college rapists (have not be charged but by their own statements have raped) have raped on average of about six times each. Keep in mind not all of these rapists are seniors so the number is artificially low.
So basically, thanks for the strawman.
-
Thanks to someone on this thread I was referred to the Scott Adams blog http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius where he has several very insightful posts into the genius of Trumps hypnotic marketing message.
Apparently Scott is an expert on hypnosis and even incorporates these theories into his comics.
His comment on Trump's Mexican Rapist statement are fascinating. Apparently this was a well thought out gambit by Trump and subliminally empowered him with women and the only candidate speaking out against rape of women in any party.
After reading Scotts analysis of Trumps success I am convinced that Trump is a master of hypnotic language as well as a master negotiator.
Trumps latest polls shows 50% of his support comes from women and that 25% comes from minorities including people of color.
I read another commentary on Trump that indicated as a voting population we are in a post racial paradigm shift. Makes sense as many of the Republicans leading are either Latinos, black or married to immigrants. Democrats not so much. They appear wedded to the racist politics of the past.
The other point in that article was that blacks are very open to Trump, especially working class folks as his message of jobs for US citizen first resonates. Another interesting point was that all job creation since 09 for females in the US has been to immigrants, either legal or illegal. So net no new jobs for nonimmigrant working women since 09. Sad really. Of course we continue with a huge unemployment and underemployment problem that real people who don't follow the 5.5% unemployment reports can tell you about.
I think our experiment with NAFTA and other trade agreements can now be chalked up as a great success for the very rich and the capitol class but as a complete failure for everyone else in the US. It did not empower our country and bring us up but instead is steadfastly lowering our country to the level of third world countries.
Sanders knows this ---- Trump knows this. The others might know this but really can't do anything about it as they are completely beholden to the donor class and multinational corporations.
If you are left leaning or right leaning I hope you take this into consideration. I sincerely hope that the final election is a Sanders Trump fight where real issues that effect working citizens will be addressed. Immigration solutions, trade agreements, minimum wage, and improving the lot of the unmonied should be priorities.
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
-
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
Except for his own special interests you mean?
-
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
Except for his own special interests you mean?
Except for his own self-interests, yes. That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.
-
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
Except for his own special interests you mean?
Except for his own self-interests, yes. That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.
Unavoidable, maybe, not not normally a problem with candidates who don't have multibillion dollar business deals and a lifelong devotion to corporate greed.
Other candidates are sometimes pressured to cave to the evils of capitalism, but they're not usually themselves a physical incarnation of the evils of capitalism.
Electing Trump to get money out of politics is like electing Jack Abramoff to get lobbying out of politics. This is not progress, people.
-
Thanks to someone on this thread I was referred to the Scott Adams blog http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius where he has several very insightful posts into the genius of Trumps hypnotic marketing message.
Apparently Scott is an expert on hypnosis and even incorporates these theories into his comics.
His comment on Trump's Mexican Rapist statement are fascinating. Apparently this was a well thought out gambit by Trump and subliminally empowered him with women and the only candidate speaking out against rape of women in any party.
After reading Scotts analysis of Trumps success I am convinced that Trump is a master of hypnotic language as well as a master negotiator.
Trumps latest polls shows 50% of his support comes from women and that 25% comes from minorities including people of color.
I read another commentary on Trump that indicated as a voting population we are in a post racial paradigm shift. Makes sense as many of the Republicans leading are either Latinos, black or married to immigrants. Democrats not so much. They appear wedded to the racist politics of the past.
The other point in that article was that blacks are very open to Trump, especially working class folks as his message of jobs for US citizen first resonates. Another interesting point was that all job creation since 09 for females in the US has been to immigrants, either legal or illegal. So net no new jobs for nonimmigrant working women since 09. Sad really. Of course we continue with a huge unemployment and underemployment problem that real people who don't follow the 5.5% unemployment reports can tell you about.
I think our experiment with NAFTA and other trade agreements can now be chalked up as a great success for the very rich and the capitol class but as a complete failure for everyone else in the US. It did not empower our country and bring us up but instead is steadfastly lowering our country to the level of third world countries.
Sanders knows this ---- Trump knows this. The others might know this but really can't do anything about it as they are completely beholden to the donor class and multinational corporations.
If you are left leaning or right leaning I hope you take this into consideration. I sincerely hope that the final election is a Sanders Trump fight where real issues that effect working citizens will be addressed. Immigration solutions, trade agreements, minimum wage, and improving the lot of the unmonied should be priorities.
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
Where did you see this, I did not.
I don't dislike Trump for being a blow hard. I dislike him for being an incompetent, asshole rapist who thinks money is the only thing that matters (for men, women get money and youth/beauty).
-
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
Except for his own special interests you mean?
Except for his own self-interests, yes. That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.
Everyone is influenced by the interests of their peers. It unavoidably shapes how you perceive the world and what's important in it. Trump's peers throughout his whole life are nothing like 99.9% of the rest of us. He will naturally be focused on the issues of the rich and powerful. Not that this is too different from most presidents. But he doesn't even have the benefit of being poor as a kid to help him have the opportunity to know what life is like for most of us.
Electing Trump to get money out of politics is like electing Jack Abramoff to get lobbying out of politics. This is not progress, people.
Agree. I do find it interesting that he's actually raising the issue of how everyone else running against him is bought and paid for (sometimes by him). That's something that needs more honesty about it. But he's also not the solution to this problem.
-
Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:
"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."
Which candidate does that describe?
-
Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:
"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."
Which candidate does that describe?
Chris Christie?
-
Those of you who dislike Trump because he is blow hard, shoot from the hip, unpolished gem please give him time to shine up a bit. He will be the only president, if elected, in my lifetime beholden to the voters and not special interests. That means a helluvalot.
Except for his own special interests you mean?
Except for his own self-interests, yes. That part is unavoidable with anyone, though.
Unavoidable, maybe, not not normally a problem with candidates who don't have multibillion dollar business deals and a lifelong devotion to corporate greed.
Other candidates are sometimes pressured to cave to the evils of capitalism, but they're not usually themselves a physical incarnation of the evils of capitalism.
Perhaps not, but this is more perception than reality. Many of them very well could be in private, and that is almost certainly the case with Clinton. At least when Trump brags about buying his own competition, one can assume that he is probably not lying. I think a lot of Trump polling reflects that image; that Trump is the only one actually saying what he believes. That makes it easy to disagree with him, but also easy to respect him for his honesty amongst a peer group that history has taught the American public cannot be trusted to talk straight.
-
Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:
"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."
Which candidate does that describe?
Chris Christie?
I didn't think that Christie was going to be able to win, but it has been fascinating to see how Trump has completely removed any ability for him to get traction. Christie's supposed appeal is that he's a jerk, but no one can out-jerk Trump. He's a pro. There's no competition.
-
Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:
"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."
Which candidate does that describe?
Chris Christie?
I didn't think that Christie was going to be able to win, but it has been fascinating to see how Trump has completely removed any ability for him to get traction. Christie's supposed appeal is that he's a jerk, but no one can out-jerk Trump. He's a pro. There's no competition.
Oh, no doubt; I barely remembered that he existed, much less running (I guess that's the Trump factor kicking in). I only remembered because of the word "bullying". Christie has been eclipsed by Trump.
-
Just was reading the personality traits of authoritarian leaders:
"these people are usually intimidating and bullying, faintly hedonistic, vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheat to win, highly prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic, tell others what they want to hear, take advantage of “suckers,” specialize in creating false images to sell self, may or may not be religious, and are usually politically and economically conservative and Republican."
Which candidate does that describe?
Chris Christie?
I didn't think that Christie was going to be able to win, but it has been fascinating to see how Trump has completely removed any ability for him to get traction. Christie's supposed appeal is that he's a jerk, but no one can out-jerk Trump. He's a pro. There's no competition.
Oh, no doubt; I barely remembered that he existed, much less running (I guess that's the Trump factor kicking in). I only remembered because of the word "bullying". Christie has been eclipsed by Trump.
Speaking of barely remembering he existed, Rick Perry just pulled out.
I hope those glasses didn't cost very much.
-
Rick Perry just pulled out.
haha, as he always should, for the good of the nation.
-
Rick Perry just pulled out.
haha, as he always should, for the good of the nation.
Yup, I had to phrase it like that.
I imagine what he said to his female partner, upon forgetting to pull out:
"Oops..."
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I do not like McCain at all, but even I agree with that statement. I guess we'll see how well the candidates polish before the primaries.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.
Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.
I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.
Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.
I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.
The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.
I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.
I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.
Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.
I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.
People like Bernie because he speaks about putting the American worker first (as opposed to outsourcing or using illegal immigrants for labor), holding those on Wall Street accountable for their often unethical behavior, and getting money out of politics. I don't agree with him on everything, and it would be absolute gridlock on many issues with a Republican congress if he were elected. It doesn't matter because he won't be.
Joe Biden may be a better candidate then Hillary, but I don't see him capturing many of the swing voters who are necessary to win an election. Again, I don't think he can win a general election.
People like me don't like Bush because we don't see any difference between him and his brother in terms of policy. I also think the fact that he has raised over $100 million for his campaign and we are more than a year away from the election is obscene. He is another status quo/bought and paid for candidate (like Hillary), and people are tired of their politicians being in the pockets of wealthy donors.
Also...we aren't a Monarchy for crying out loud. The fact that it may come down to two candidates who are from the immediate families of former Presidents should really bother anyone who believes in Democracy.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.
Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.
I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.
The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.
I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.
I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.
Socialist Sanders wants a huge raise in minimum wage, free 4 year college, he supports obamacare, etc. I find that to be extremely socialist. However I've lived in the United States my entire life, so I don't have a lot of points of reference.
It also annoys me that he wants to ban all handguns and most rifles, I'm pretty sure even if he was president, he'd have little chance of accomplishing it, but it still annoys me.
I don't want higher taxes, I don't want an extreme increase in national debt, I don't want Socialist Sanders.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.
Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.
I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.
The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.
I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.
I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.
I don't disagree but there is a VERY good chance that one of those mockable ones may be the next POTUS.
I would love for Sanders to get elected, I really would. I fail to see how an old white Jewish man will capture the minority vote and/or the independent vote. The fact that we like him does not make him electable.
The server thing is a big deal to anyone who has ever held a clearance of any kind. The deletion of the emails from the server (even if innocuous) would be a fireable and possibly jailable offense to anyone in the Intel community whose last name was not Clinton/Bush, etc. The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint. On a more abstract level, it shows how the political class operates without rules and regulations like the rest of us. I think that personally angers me more than the reckless nature of the entire thing. I'm all for calling out phony scandals i.e. the whole Lewinsky thing, but this is no phony scandal and will not just go away.
-
Rick Perry Said:
"We have a tremendous field – the best in a generation – so I step aside knowing our party is in good hands, and as long as we listen to the grassroots, the cause of conservatism will be too," Perry said.
The party is in good hands, fucking LOL
"tremendous" and "best in a generation"??? McCain and Romney and Dole and GHW Bush are head and shoulders above any of these clowns running now.
I think we have some okay GOP candidates, in order from who i would most like to be the candidate, John Kasich, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush. I know i'll be ridiculed but this is just my thought.
I think they're the best too (Pataki would be on that list but doesn't have a chance). But I think Rand's crazy on 40% of the issues, and for political reasons (running for president) he's changed his positions on a bunch of the ones I liked. Jeb's really been disappointing. It seems like his only qualification is that his name is Bush. Etc
From a staunch independent's perspective: Jeb and Hillary are both horrible. If it comes down to those two head to head, I'm moving to a foreign country like Canada or Alabama and starting over with a new identity. Sanders is great but has a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
You guys mock the republican field (rightfully so, many of them are terrible), but the Democrats are in no better shape. Like it or not, Hillary is in big trouble with this whole server thing. At worst she's a felon, at best she is incredibly incompetent. Unless someone else enters the picture, we will probably have a Republican victory in 2016.
I don't understand why people hate Jeb Bush so much, he was an great governor that had a few bad decisions, some very bad, but still a great governor.
Also, most believe Joe Biden will be running soon so that will probably be the democrat candidate, if he does indeed run.
I also don't understand why people like Socialist Sanders so much. If Socialist Sanders is elected, one of two things will happen every time he gets his way with one of his socialist ideas. One, taxes will rise significantly, or two, we will take on significantly more national debt. If people want to live in a socialist country there are many to choose from, but a lot of us, myself included, love capitalism. If the United States was Socialist, MMM wouldn't of even moved here. Capitalism is a friend to all who want to achieve financial independence. Those who are willing to work hard and choose the right path can find very high paying jobs and not lose over half of it to taxes.
The Republicans just make it very easy to mock them. There are certainly Democrats who also have no chance (like Chafee, trying out his 3rd political affiliation) but they aren't doing crazy things. Chafee's platform is that we should be more positive and such. Um, OK. Hard to object to that, but easy to ignore him as not a great candidate.
I'm not a Hilary fan. But she'd be OK if elected. She's actually pretty moderate. People hate her as a person, but her positions are just kind of status quo. She wouldn't really be bringing anything different to the job. She's somewhat hawkish, corporatist, business friendly, etc. Like every other president we've had. The email thing was a very stupid decision but I don't think it's as bad as torturing people or starting wars without justification or other decisions that presidents actually make. I don't think it disqualifies her and is really more of a distraction. She is obviously paranoid about how everything she does is over-scrutinized by political opponents. But that's just because everything she's done for the last 25 years has been over-scrutinized by political opponents. The House Republicans investigated the Clintons' Christmas card list and Socks the cat. So the paranoia is justified but led her to a stupid outcome.
I actually think Sanders is pretty electable, especially without any good alternative on the other side. Sanders likes to call himself a socialist because he strongly supports programs like Social Security and Medicare (as do nearly all Americans), but he's really not extreme. His positions are outside of the establishment Washington DC consensus--which is a fairly conservative reference point (tax cuts are good, wars are good, fundraising is good, CEOs are the important people, etc). But his positions resonate well with a large swath of the actual American people (you know, the ones who actually get to vote, and not just the multimillionaire TV pundits). I think Americans want to vote for someone they can get excited about. Trump is a perfect example of this. He has almost no policies, doesn't understand a lot of the issues, and is a despicable person, but he gets people excited. Sanders is someone that people can get excited about--and the huge crowds he's getting speak to that. Obama is another example. People got really excited about the vision he painted for them. Neither Gore nor Bush were very exciting to most people, but Bush really excited the evangelicals. Bill Clinton was far more exciting than GHW Bush or Dole. Sanders is very electable in the general.
Socialist Sanders wants a huge raise in minimum wage, free 4 year college, he supports obamacare, etc. I find that to be extremely socialist. However I've lived in the United States my entire life, so I don't have a lot of points of reference.
It also annoys me that he wants to ban all handguns and most rifles, I'm pretty sure even if he was president, he'd have little chance of accomplishing it, but it still annoys me.
I don't want higher taxes, I don't want an extreme increase in national debt, I don't want Socialist Sanders.
Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.
He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.
If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.
-
Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.
He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.
If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.
Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.
-
Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.
He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.
If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.
Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.
I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)
-
Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.
He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.
If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.
Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.
I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)
Executives and legislatures love to take credit for things that happened mostly because the economy improved (and they mostly have no effect on the economy). What happened was that Ohio's economy got better because 2011 budget estimates (using 2010 data to make the projections) was when we were just coming out of the Great Recession and the economy has grown nationwide a lot which increases revenues. The same thing happened in many states. Jeb! likes to take credit for the Florida economy when he was governor but he just happened to be fortunate to be governor during a giant housing bubble and to leave office just before it popped. The balanced budget of the late 90s also was a result of a huge stock market bubble pumping in more tax revenue.
-
Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.
He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.
If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.
Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.
I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)
Executives and legislatures love to take credit for things that happened mostly because the economy improved (and they mostly have no effect on the economy). What happened was that Ohio's economy got better because 2011 budget estimates (using 2010 data to make the projections) was when we were just coming out of the Great Recession and the economy has grown nationwide a lot which increases revenues. The same thing happened in many states. Jeb! likes to take credit for the Florida economy when he was governor but he just happened to be fortunate to be governor during a giant housing bubble and to leave office just before it popped. The balanced budget of the late 90s also was a result of a huge stock market bubble pumping in more tax revenue.
Was the Economy good when Kasich balanced the budget during the 90s? Sure, but that was the only time it's been balanced since the 60's, there have been other times when we had a great economy where the budget didn't get balanced. Was the economy good from 2010-2014? Sure, but his state outperformed most other states in the same economy, while making more tax cuts than any other state.
-
Americans want a minimum wage increase. And because it's so low right now studies have shown that it doesn't have the negative effects that conservative economists like to demagogue about. If it got too high, it would have those bad outcomes, but not where we are now. So I think it's fine. I think the ACA is fine, but the healthcare system needs more work. People who dislike the ACA generally dislike it because they either don't know what's in it or they think it doesn't go far enough to get us to where we need to be. The ACA is more or less what Dole, Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, etc, were advocating for in the 90s instead of HilaryCare, and what Romney implemented in Massachusetts. It's a private market-based system. Big whoop. I think free state schools (his position) is fine too.
He's actually to the right of the Democrats on gun issues. He voted against their bills. He's from a rural hunting state. What he said was he was against guns that were only for killing large amounts of people--a meaningless statement really.
If you don't want a huge increase the debt, the best thing you can do is avoid warmongers, people who fund a huge and unnecessary military that is designed to fight the Soviet Union and not modern threats, people who refuse to modernize and fix our health care system, and people who want to cut taxes. Those are the 4 biggest drivers of debt we have. I think Sanders is the only candidate who is not at least one of those 4.
Because I don't want a huge increase in debt, I'll be hoping for a person who will try to make a balanced budget. #Kasich4US
In Ohio, Kasich has had the biggest tax cut in the U.S. during the duration of his first term. He also balanced the budget that had an $8 million deficit and turned it into a $2 million surplus, so I'm not sure cutting taxes always leads to more debt. Although, if I had the choice, I'd choose a flat tax that can vary between 20%-35% depending on our current needs. Also an environmental tax.
I don't know much about Kasich, but he seems to be one of the more reasonable GOP candidates. Can you tell me a little more about how he was able to balance the budget while at the same time cutting taxes? What other legislation did he instate and/or what programs did he reduce funding to or cut in order to get a surplus? (I'm legitimately interested and not trying to provoke, though the previous sentence can sound kind of provoke-y -- it just seems like cutting programs or reducing funding to programs would be necessary to both cut taxes and the deficit, right?)
He brought 350,000 jobs to Ohio which helped a ton, he also reduced the budgets of some programs. There may be other variables too, I'm not sure.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
It was the same trend for the nation during those same years. Ohio was nothing special.
He brought 350,000 jobs to Ohio which helped a ton
No, it was a national trend in the national economy and unemployment dropped (another way of saying that employment increased) dramatically nationwide.
Was the Economy good when Kasich balanced the budget during the 90s? Sure, but that was the only time it's been balanced since the 60's, there have been other times when we had a great economy where the budget didn't get balanced. Was the economy good from 2010-2014? Sure, but his state outperformed most other states in the same economy, while making more tax cuts than any other state.
The stock market was literally triple the valuation it had had on average throughout history at the end of the 90s. That's the reason for the balanced budget--huge revenues. And the Ohio economy improved about the same as the rest of the nation. Governors really have almost no influence on an economy. They really can just do stuff to destroy it (like in Kansas). Kasich might be a great governor, but these things are not evidence of that.
-
I would love for Sanders to get elected, I really would. I fail to see how an old white Jewish man will capture the minority vote and/or the independent vote. The fact that we like him does not make him electable.
I used to think that no one would vote for the black guy. But once people get to know someone and like them they set aside labels somewhat. Even if it's a "he's not like the rest of them" kind of thinking. I think anti-black prejudice is much stronger than antisemitic sentiment.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.
-
The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint.
Fact? What fact? What evidence have you seen that this actually happened?
Stop believing the Trump talking points. Just because he says Clinton transmitted classified materials with an insecure server doesn't make it true.
Classified materials exist in classified secure locations, on a classified network. They cannot leave those locations. There are no thumb drives, no notepads, no CD drives with which to remove classified materials from secure locations. If Clinton transmitted any classified information from her home server, it was information she had in her head. Disclosing classified information you have in your head to a non-cleared person is a crime, but it has nothing to do with her server use. Disclosing classified information you have in your head to a cleared person, outside of a secure facility, is not a crime though it is discouraged. It's also super common in the White House, as virtually everyone there has security clearance and they have to talk to each other to do their jobs, and the entire building is not a secure facility.
This whole issue is poorly understood by the public, which hurts her political career, but is good for national security. They don't really want the general public to know how these rules work, or why, or how they are regulated and enforced. But rest assured there are whole departments of people who specialize in this stuff, who perform the clearances and the reviews, who maintain and track the secure networks, who are constantly searching for signs that classified information has shown up out in the wider world.
If there were really a problem with Clinton, she would be dead already. At this point the "scandal" is just political theater, the new Whitewater, an attempt to make political hay out of perceived problems where none exist.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.
You just quoted yourself providing numbers that are literally within one tenth of one percent of the total US number for which I provided a reference. The BLS is the official entity that calculates the US and state unemployment rates. They are the same. Maybe you are mistaking Michigan for Ohio on that Google graph. Kasich took office January 2011.
But like I said it doesn't matter because a governor has essentially no effect on employment rates in that short a term.
-
The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint.
Nothing was classified at the time. If something is later classified (as 2 documents were), that's not the fault of the individual who did whatever with that info at the time there was no restriction against it. Taking criminal action against something for doing something that was not a criminal offense at the time ex post facto and is literally prohibited by the Constitution.
-
The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint.
Fact? What fact? What evidence have you seen that this actually happened?
Stop believing the Trump talking points. Just because he says Clinton transmitted classified materials with an insecure server doesn't make it true.
Classified materials exist in classified secure locations, on a classified network. They cannot leave those locations. There are no thumb drives, no notepads, no CD drives with which to remove classified materials from secure locations. If Clinton transmitted any classified information from her home server, it was information she had in her head. Disclosing classified information you have in your head to a non-cleared person is a crime, but it has nothing to do with her server use. Disclosing classified information you have in your head to a cleared person, outside of a secure facility, is not a crime though it is discouraged. It's also super common in the White House, as virtually everyone there has security clearance and they have to talk to each other to do their jobs, and the entire building is not a secure facility.
This whole issue is poorly understood by the public, which hurts her political career, but is good for national security. They don't really want the general public to know how these rules work, or why, or how they are regulated and enforced. But rest assured there are whole departments of people who specialize in this stuff, who perform the clearances and the reviews, who maintain and track the secure networks, who are constantly searching for signs that classified information has shown up out in the wider world.
If there were really a problem with Clinton, she would be dead already. At this point the "scandal" is just political theater, the new Whitewater, an attempt to make political hay out of perceived problems where none exist.
Out of curiosity, what type of clearance do you hold, sir or ma'am?
-
Regarding Jeb!:
He was on Colbert. Goodness did he bungle this question:
Colbert asked him how he differed from his brother, George. Jeb! could have picked so many things such as, oh, I don't know, choosing Dick Cheney as VP, a policy of pre-emptive strikes, working with the UN rather than invading Iraq, hiring Rumsfeld as defense secretary, playing on fear to push through legislation that allowed the government to spy on EVERYONE, Guantanamo Bay, justifying the use of torture, killing people with drones, etc.
Instead, he said his brother let too many spendy bills go through in his last year. Jeb would have vetoed them. REALLY? Out of all of the awful, horrible things your brother did as president, that's what you disagreed with?
Oof.
edit: of course he couldn't possibly say 'killing people with drones'. 58% of Americans think killing people without due process, and with high casualty rates is justified (http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/28/drones-support.html).
-
Regarding Jeb!:
He was on Colbert. Goodness did he bungle this question:
Colbert asked him how he differed from his brother, George. Jeb! could have picked so many things such as, oh, I don't know, choosing Dick Cheney as VP, a policy of pre-emptive strikes, working with the UN rather than invading Iraq, hiring Rumsfeld as defense secretary, playing on fear to push through legislation that allowed the government to spy on EVERYONE, Guantanamo Bay, justifying the use of torture, killing people with drones, etc.
Instead, he said his brother let too many spendy bills go through in his last year. Jeb would have vetoed them. REALLY? Out of all of the awful, horrible things your brother did as president, that's what you disagreed with?
Oof.
Maybe he doesn't like to talk bad about his family
-
Regarding Jeb!:
He was on Colbert. Goodness did he bungle this question:
Colbert asked him how he differed from his brother, George. Jeb! could have picked so many things such as, oh, I don't know, choosing Dick Cheney as VP, a policy of pre-emptive strikes, working with the UN rather than invading Iraq, hiring Rumsfeld as defense secretary, playing on fear to push through legislation that allowed the government to spy on EVERYONE, Guantanamo Bay, justifying the use of torture, killing people with drones, etc.
Instead, he said his brother let too many spendy bills go through in his last year. Jeb would have vetoed them. REALLY? Out of all of the awful, horrible things your brother did as president, that's what you disagreed with?
Oof.
Maybe he doesn't like to talk bad about his family
Yeah, as he thought about his answer, I had the feeling he was thinking what could he chose that didn't alienate his family or his base. Sure, who wants to throw their sibling under the bus in public. But among all of those items, surely he could pick one. Hell, he could have said he'd have responded to Hurricane Katrina faster.
-
Regarding Jeb!:
He was on Colbert. Goodness did he bungle this question:
Colbert asked him how he differed from his brother, George. Jeb! could have picked so many things such as, oh, I don't know, choosing Dick Cheney as VP, a policy of pre-emptive strikes, working with the UN rather than invading Iraq, hiring Rumsfeld as defense secretary, playing on fear to push through legislation that allowed the government to spy on EVERYONE, Guantanamo Bay, justifying the use of torture, killing people with drones, etc.
Instead, he said his brother let too many spendy bills go through in his last year. Jeb would have vetoed them. REALLY? Out of all of the awful, horrible things your brother did as president, that's what you disagreed with?
Oof.
Maybe he doesn't like to talk bad about his family
Yeah, as he thought about his answer, I had the feeling he was thinking what could he chose that didn't alienate his family or his base. Sure, who wants to throw their sibling under the bus in public. But among all of those items, surely he could pick one. Hell, he could have said he'd have responded to Hurricane Katrina faster.
Jeb! has to know that he's going to be asked about what he would have done differently from his brother. He's been asked that question dozens of times already. And he has to have better answers than spendy bills. But I fear the real reason is that he generally agrees with a lot of what W did. Jeb! has hired a bunch of W's advisors, including foreign policy and national security ones. I don't think there's a lot of difference between them. He initially said Iraq was a good idea and he would do it again. Then after all the backlash he said he misheard the question (even though it was very clear that he hadn't).
-
of course he couldn't possibly say 'killing people with drones'.
Maybe he's saving that answer for the "how he differs from Obama" question? See https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/.
Yes, Bush started it but he was a minor league player compared with Obama in this game.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.
You just quoted yourself providing numbers that are literally within one tenth of one percent of the total US number for which I provided a reference. The BLS is the official entity that calculates the US and state unemployment rates. They are the same. Maybe you are mistaking Michigan for Ohio on that Google graph. Kasich took office January 2011.
But like I said it doesn't matter because a governor has essentially no effect on employment rates in that short a term.
Okay I guess he only did .2% better than the United States as far as unemployment goes so far. But he still reduced taxes more than any other state, while simultaneously balancing the budget and bringing in a surplus, still very impressive. Governors play a huge roll in their states, Kasich championed many policies making Ohio more business friendly. Most governors have line item veto power, and suggest budgets to their legislature, as well as having to approve any changes. They also have massive influence over their legislatures and often have proposals introduced on their behalf.
-
of course he couldn't possibly say 'killing people with drones'.
Maybe he's saving that answer for the "how he differs from Obama" question? See https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/.
Yes, Bush started it but he was a minor league player compared with Obama in this game.
Yes, I'm painfully aware. It's my main complaint about President Obama. I think this is a terribly misguided policy.
-
So, Bob W posted a link to the Scott Adams blog. It's SO GOOD. Here's a recent post:
Who's Smarter - the Smart People or the Dumb People (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/128844698316/who-is-smarter-the-smart-people-or-the-dumb).
tl;dr of the article: Mr. Adams creates cognitive dissonance by saying smart people think they can see through political bullshit and do proper research to figure out who to vote for, but then he asks: who is smarter? People who pick their own stocks or people who invest in index funds? So which smart person are you? Because thinking you can thoughtfully pick a candidate is like thinking you can pick a stock. Which one is it? Funny.
Love this section:
The popular media is staffed mostly by writers and art majors and other people who tend to believe in magic. It is no surprise that they don’t see how absurd it is to expect citizens to have useful opinions based on the misinformation that that same media provides around the clock.
He's onto it. I'm a dummy too: I don't want to have to be an expert in every facet of policy making. I want to elect someone who will suitably represent my interests and sensibilities. But how do I possibly choose that person with all the watered down reporting and outright misleading reporting?
So, what's the index ETF in the political realm? We have to pick a stock and bet the whole portfolio on it. Scary. Thank goodness our president exists in a system of checks and balances - not optimal checks and balances - but at least somewhat. Hey that's it! - the three branch system *is* our political ETF.
-
The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint.
Nothing was classified at the time. If something is later classified (as 2 documents were), that's not the fault of the individual who did whatever with that info at the time there was no restriction against it. Taking criminal action against something for doing something that was not a criminal offense at the time ex post facto and is literally prohibited by the Constitution.
You are absolutely right, I'm not suggesting any criminal action be taken based on the retroactive classification of the documents. If you re-read my post, I said she is at best incompetant and at worst a felon. A woman who has been in the upper echelons of American politics for longer than I've been alive should have known that the SOS was likely to receive correspondence that was classified even if it were not marked so at the time. If (and this is a pretty big if), that is the extent of the matter (i.e. the FBI doesn't find evidence of further criminal wrongdoing), she is unfit to be the leader of the free world based on making such a horrible decision.
-
of course he couldn't possibly say 'killing people with drones'.
Maybe he's saving that answer for the "how he differs from Obama" question? See https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/.
Yes, Bush started it but he was a minor league player compared with Obama in this game.
Yes, I'm painfully aware. It's my main complaint about President Obama. I think this is a terribly misguided policy.
+1. It's baffling and disappointing.
-
Out of curiosity, what type of clearance do you hold, sir or ma'am?
The type I wouldn't talk about or admit to, if I had one.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.
You just quoted yourself providing numbers that are literally within one tenth of one percent of the total US number for which I provided a reference. The BLS is the official entity that calculates the US and state unemployment rates. They are the same. Maybe you are mistaking Michigan for Ohio on that Google graph. Kasich took office January 2011.
But like I said it doesn't matter because a governor has essentially no effect on employment rates in that short a term.
Okay I guess he only did .2% better than the United States as far as unemployment goes so far.
No, Ohio lagged 0.1% at the beginning and today. I'm trying not to be harsh, but It feels like you don't pay attention to things--even in the same post or in the text you typed the your own prior post or in the results for your own searches. Maybe you should be more careful about drawing so many conclusions based on evidence that isn't actually there. Maybe your prior biases color what you think you are seeing.
-
Out of curiosity, what type of clearance do you hold, sir or ma'am?
The type I wouldn't talk about or admit to, if I had one.
Which means you don't have one and have no clue what you are talking about, although I'm impressed that you seem to know what a SCIF is. The answer to your inevitable question is TS/SCI, go ahead and GOOGLE it. I really don't care about admitting it. The Chinese know literally everything about me due to the OPM hack anyway.
So...I'll just leave these little beauties here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-wrote-classified-e-mails-sent-using-private-server/2015/09/01/5d456616-50bd-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html?referrer=
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/hillary-clinton-email-controversy-explained-2016/
Hate to use ultra-right wing websites like WaPo, NYT, and CNN to prove my point, but it was the best I could do on short notice.
You are welcome to come back and apologize for your strange and condescending rant above at any time.
-
of course he couldn't possibly say 'killing people with drones'.
Maybe he's saving that answer for the "how he differs from Obama" question? See https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/.
Yes, Bush started it but he was a minor league player compared with Obama in this game.
Yes, I'm painfully aware. It's my main complaint about President Obama. I think this is a terribly misguided policy.
+1. It's baffling and disappointing.
It's crazy. Republicans make up a bunch of fake things to be outraged about. But here's this perfect issue that's actually outside the law (I think) and they could totally make a big deal out of. But they don't. It's so silly. Obama and his people get to decide who to murder and no one even necessarily knows about it even after the fact. But I guess the Republicans agree with the practice, otherwise why would they keep mum about it while making up other nonsense to fight over.
-
... But I guess the Republicans agree with the practice, otherwise why would they keep mum about it while making up other nonsense to fight over.
At least one candidate has proposed an expansion in the extrajudicial drone killing program to include people whose only crime is "thinking" about certain proscribed things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/18/wonkbook-lindsey-grahams-comments-on-drones-were-very-blunt/
-
Out of curiosity, what type of clearance do you hold, sir or ma'am?
The type I wouldn't talk about or admit to, if I had one.
Which means you don't have one and have no clue what you are talking about, although I'm impressed that you seem to know what a SCIF is.
…
You are welcome to come back and apologize for your strange and condescending rant above at any time.
I'd wager Sol has a Q clearance, and if you don't know what that is, you owe him an apology.
-
Out of curiosity, what type of clearance do you hold, sir or ma'am?
The type I wouldn't talk about or admit to, if I had one.
Which means you don't have one and have no clue what you are talking about, although I'm impressed that you seem to know what a SCIF is.
…
You are welcome to come back and apologize for your strange and condescending rant above at any time.
I'd wager Sol has a Q clearance, and if you don't know what that is, you owe him an apology.
Meh. I make no apologies to the DOE!!!!
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.
You just quoted yourself providing numbers that are literally within one tenth of one percent of the total US number for which I provided a reference. The BLS is the official entity that calculates the US and state unemployment rates. They are the same. Maybe you are mistaking Michigan for Ohio on that Google graph. Kasich took office January 2011.
But like I said it doesn't matter because a governor has essentially no effect on employment rates in that short a term.
Okay I guess he only did .2% better than the United States as far as unemployment goes so far.
No, Ohio lagged 0.1% at the beginning and today. I'm trying not to be harsh, but It feels like you don't pay attention to things--even in the same post or in the text you typed the your own prior post or in the results for your own searches. Maybe you should be more careful about drawing so many conclusions based on evidence that isn't actually there. Maybe your prior biases color what you think you are seeing.
Ohio was even with the United States at 9.2% in January of 2011. What I'm looking at (googled ohio unemployment rate and used the graph google produced) has April 2015 as the most recent unemployment rates and it shows Ohio at 5.2% and United States at 5.4%, hence Ohio has done .2% better than the United States since Kasich took office.
-
I'd wager Sol has a Q clearance, and if you don't know what that is, you owe him an apology.
Isn't it best to just not talk about it? There are lots of people here with various kinds of security clearances, and I've always been vaguely uncomfortable with the way people seem so cavalier about these discussions.
For the record, I didn't know what a Q clearance was until I googled it. Not my thing.
-
of course he couldn't possibly say 'killing people with drones'.
Maybe he's saving that answer for the "how he differs from Obama" question? See https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/01/23/more-than-2400-dead-as-obamas-drone-campaign-marks-five-years/.
Yes, Bush started it but he was a minor league player compared with Obama in this game.
Yes, I'm painfully aware. It's my main complaint about President Obama. I think this is a terribly misguided policy.
+1. It's baffling and disappointing.
It's crazy. Republicans make up a bunch of fake things to be outraged about. But here's this perfect issue that's actually outside the law (I think) and they could totally make a big deal out of. But they don't. It's so silly. Obama and his people get to decide who to murder and no one even necessarily knows about it even after the fact. But I guess the Republicans agree with the practice, otherwise why would they keep mum about it while making up other nonsense to fight over.
As a registered Republican, I object wholeheartedly and vocally to the drone program. I feel like a lone voice.
-
I'd wager Sol has a Q clearance, and if you don't know what that is, you owe him an apology.
Isn't it best to just not talk about it? There are lots of people here with various kinds of security clearances, and I've always been vaguely uncomfortable with the way people seem so cavalier about these discussions.
For the record, I didn't know what a Q clearance was until I googled it. Not my thing.
Until the OPM hack, I would have agreed with you. It doesn't matter now, but I suppose you know that. That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
-
I just got home from hearing Rand Paul speak tonight in St. Louis. He didn't make a political speech, he spoke about his family, growing up in the Paul family. His parents stressed education and three of their children are physicians. It was a nice, relaxed speech and the purpose of it was to give background on his mother who won the annual homemaker's award from this organization, the Eagle Forum.
Eagle Forum is way too religious for me, but I'm glad they brought in so many Republican candidates, Today Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum spoke, yesterday it was Perry, Ben Carson, and Huckabee.
This MMM group would like to know that Rand cuts his own hair, much to the dismay of his wife and staff. That explains why his hair always looks a little wonky to me.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
-
I just got home from hearing Rand Paul speak tonight in St. Louis. He didn't make a political speech, he spoke about his family, growing up in the Paul family. His parents stressed education and three of their children are physicians. It was a nice, relaxed speech and the purpose of it was to give background on his mother who won the annual homemaker's award from this organization, the Eagle Forum.
Eagle Forum is way too religious for me, but I'm glad they brought in so many Republican candidates, Today Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum spoke, yesterday it was Perry, Ben Carson, and Huckabee.
This MMM group would like to know that Rand cuts his own hair, much to the dismay of his wife and staff. That explains why his hair always looks a little wonkey to me.
I have my girlfriend cut my own hair, and I think 99% of the population shouldn't pay for their haircuts, I think Rand is in the 1% that should.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
A: possibly
B: Why do you seem so bothered by the question? He claims to know more about the IC than I do even though I work in the IC (GOOGLE it). Wouldn't you try to defend your life's work against someone if they were grossly misinformed?
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Check your PMs.
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
No, he's not.
He claims to know more about the IC than I do even though I work in the IC (GOOGLE it).
Where did I ever make any such claim?
I claimed that your assertion that Hillary Clinton committed a crime by sending classified information from an insecure server was unsubstantiated.
Don't take everything so personally. If you would like to discuss my actual claim, by presenting evidence and then discussing it, I would welcome the exchange. What I do not welcome is aggressive personal attacks unrelated to the substance of our discussion.
Here, I'll start. If Hillary Clinton was being accused of a crime, I suspect she would be arrested and charged with a crime. Since that has not happened, I suspect she has not been accused of a crime. At least not by anyone with any authority. You and I can accuse her all we like.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
Anyone who says what their security clearance is on an internet forum doesn't have much of a clearance. We don't what Sol's is (or isn't) and it just doesn't matter. Let's get back to slinging opinions and mud about those crazy enough to want to be president.
-
I'd wager Sol has a Q clearance, and if you don't know what that is, you owe him an apology.
Isn't it best to just not talk about it? There are lots of people here with various kinds of security clearances, and I've always been vaguely uncomfortable with the way people seem so cavalier about these discussions.
I'm not shy about talking about my level of clearance, but not the details of my work at that time. I'm over a decade removed from that kind of work, so at least some of it is no longer actually a secret. Still, anyone's clearance isn't really a point worth mentioning most of the time, because anyone with any direct details to discuss a topic, can't discuss the topic. That should be a duh.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
Anyone who says what their security clearance is on an internet forum doesn't have much of a clearance. We don't what Sol's is (or isn't) and it just doesn't matter. Let's get back to slinging opinions and mud about those crazy enough to want to be president.
Mmmkay....again, before the OPM hack I would have agreed. Now it's a moot point as the Chinese government knows all. I guess mine isn't much however.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Check your PMs.
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
No, he's not.
He claims to know more about the IC than I do even though I work in the IC (GOOGLE it).
Re-read my post Sol, I said at best she was incompetent, at worst a felon. I never said she has been accused of a crime. Please respond to your assertion that there was no classified info sent on the server, in direct rebuttal to the articles I posted.
You never directly claimed to know more than I do but your condescending tone and by statinting that I was listening to Trump talking points upset me. I will try to be more diplomatic in the future, will you do the same?
-
I'd wager Sol has a Q clearance, and if you don't know what that is, you owe him an apology.
Isn't it best to just not talk about it? There are lots of people here with various kinds of security clearances, and I've always been vaguely uncomfortable with the way people seem so cavalier about these discussions.
I'm not shy about talking about my level of clearance, but not the details of my work at that time. I'm over a decade removed from that kind of work, so at least some of it is no longer actually a secret. Still, anyone's clearance isn't really a point worth mentioning most of the time, because anyone with any direct details to discuss a topic, can't discuss the topic. That should be a duh.
I disagree, if someone is claiming to know more about a subject, i.e. classified materials than someone else and they have no clearance, it is very relevant to the subject. Again, the rules prohibit the release of classified info, not the fact that an individual holds a specific clearance.
-
The unemployment rate in Ohio before John Kasich took office was 9.3% and it's currently 5.2%.
Nationally it was 9.2% the day he took office and 5.1% today.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
If you merely google "Ohio unemployment rate", you'll get a graph that shows Ohio having about 1% higher unemployment rate than the United States as a whole before Kasich was Governor, whereas now Ohio has a better unemployment rate than the United States as a whole.
You just quoted yourself providing numbers that are literally within one tenth of one percent of the total US number for which I provided a reference. The BLS is the official entity that calculates the US and state unemployment rates. They are the same. Maybe you are mistaking Michigan for Ohio on that Google graph. Kasich took office January 2011.
But like I said it doesn't matter because a governor has essentially no effect on employment rates in that short a term.
Okay I guess he only did .2% better than the United States as far as unemployment goes so far.
No, Ohio lagged 0.1% at the beginning and today. I'm trying not to be harsh, but It feels like you don't pay attention to things--even in the same post or in the text you typed the your own prior post or in the results for your own searches. Maybe you should be more careful about drawing so many conclusions based on evidence that isn't actually there. Maybe your prior biases color what you think you are seeing.
Ohio was even with the United States at 9.2% in January of 2011. What I'm looking at (googled ohio unemployment rate and used the graph google produced) has April 2015 as the most recent unemployment rates and it shows Ohio at 5.2% and United States at 5.4%, hence Ohio has done .2% better than the United States since Kasich took office.
I'm dropping this. I went with the numbers you provided, but you keep providing different numbers at different times and not explaining sufficiently at the time what you're talking about. And even if it were 0.2% different than the nation, it would have essentially nothing to do with the governor, and may not even be a real difference (perhaps within the margin of error). It would have to do with the particular mix of employers in OH vs the rest of the country and how those industries have improved versus the rest of the US during that arbitrary timeline. The governor has essentially no impact on that in so short a duration.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
I had to get secret level clearance to work on american F-18s for a job a few years back, and it just required a police check and a few questions. Totally not a big deal.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
I had to get secret level clearance to work on american F-18s for a job a few years back, and it just required a police check and a few questions. Totally not a big deal.
You're right, it is not a big deal at all. That's why I'm a bit shocked that everyone seems up in arms about me asking.
-
The fact that there was an unencrypted server used to transmit classified materials is an absolute nightmare from a cybersecurity standpoint.
Fact? What fact? What evidence have you seen that this actually happened?
Stop believing the Trump talking points. Just because he says Clinton transmitted classified materials with an insecure server doesn't make it true.
Classified materials exist in classified secure locations, on a classified network. They cannot leave those locations. There are no thumb drives, no notepads, no CD drives with which to remove classified materials from secure locations. If Clinton transmitted any classified information from her home server, it was information she had in her head. Disclosing classified information you have in your head to a non-cleared person is a crime, but it has nothing to do with her server use. Disclosing classified information you have in your head to a cleared person, outside of a secure facility, is not a crime though it is discouraged. It's also super common in the White House, as virtually everyone there has security clearance and they have to talk to each other to do their jobs, and the entire building is not a secure facility.
This whole issue is poorly understood by the public, which hurts her political career, but is good for national security. They don't really want the general public to know how these rules work, or why, or how they are regulated and enforced. But rest assured there are whole departments of people who specialize in this stuff, who perform the clearances and the reviews, who maintain and track the secure networks, who are constantly searching for signs that classified information has shown up out in the wider world.
If there were really a problem with Clinton, she would be dead already. At this point the "scandal" is just political theater, the new Whitewater, an attempt to make political hay out of perceived problems where none exist.
At the risk of resurrecting the issue that was actually at hand, and (hopefully) discontinuing the dance that was being performed atop it:
I'm going to start off by saying I don't think there's any question at this point that there was in fact classified information. Statements from the State Department and Intelligence Community inspector generals, and corroborated by the CIA and NSA, on July 24, attest to that fact. But that's probably not what gets to most people; at least it shouldn't be. It may still be arguable, and probably is still believable (I'm not that up-to-date on the question) that Clinton did nothing illegal. I think it is highly probable that she didn't intend to.
For all the TS/SCI or whatever else people around here, they probably don't appreciate that they're not allowed to leave their work out on a desk unlocked next to their colleagues while they run to the restroom; that they could get prosecuted for getting the wrong documents mixed in with material that they carry in their briefcase; or that they are treated with extreme scrutiny because it's our policy to treat everyone with identical scrutiny; but that, nonetheless, Clinton is apparently immune from the fallout of her actions.
But what frustrates me is how shady it all seems, and how unfazed she is by the whole thing. I think this is one of the biggest occurrences I've ever seen where a story becomes a story because a person refuses to acknowledge it. She screwed up big time providing a poorly-secured avenue for State Department communications into her personal server, but she refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Where I'm from we call her course of action "sea lawyering." Meaning, she has staked her entire claim on a lack of illegality, rather than on whether or not she acted correctly. The investigative bodies appointed to raise the question of criminal wrongdoing will see to any illegality. Meanwhile I, as a voter, would rather see her take responsibility for her actions, explain and show some understanding of how she could and should have done much better, and be forthcoming in trying to clean up the mess. If she doesn't feel any responsibility to be forthcoming to the American public, then I would like to help her find a job that will match that expectation; US president isn't that job.
-
That being said, what is your clearance level my friend?
Are you going to ask how long his penis is next?
A: possibly
B: Why do you seem so bothered by the question? He claims to know more about the IC than I do even though I work in the IC (GOOGLE it). Wouldn't you try to defend your life's work against someone if they were grossly misinformed?
Given that my (bad) joke could not have fallen any flatter, allow me to explain: my point was not that your question was prying into private matters (though that's also true), but that its only purpose was to initiate an ego-driven contest to find out whose clearance is bigger.
-
Noticed that the issue of Income Inequality came and went, but I don't feel like starting a new thread to I add this back in.
2 thoughts
One is I've noticed that people confuse personal responsibility with public policy. For example if I over spend eventually I will go bankrupt but governments can over spend and if managed properly never go bankrupt. The US has a 17 trillion dollar debt but it will never go bankrupt!
Inspite of what everyone says here Inequality is the greatest threat that America faces, far outpacing anything from the middle east or Mexico. Even Billionaires are starting to grow concerned. As Paul Tudor Jones said in a recent TED talk, inequality will be solved by one of three ways
Taxes War or Revolution.
I'm betting on the first as even Jeb Bush is proposing a trillion dollar tax increase (you have to hunt for it as he's done a great job of burying it)
From Fortune
Can a (billionaire) hedge fund manager fix income inequality? (http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/paul-tudor-jones-income-inequality/)
edited
-
an interesting comment I found
Taxes are the default solution to corporate profiteering for a reason: it's involuntary, and it pulls money down to those unaffiliated with the business owner, and not through lateral channels, like charities associated with the business owner, etc. Also, given enough time, all business owners fall into the "I'm due what I've made" mental trap, and eventually feel their class is appropriate.
Paul Jones here is a good example. He lives a billionaire lifestyle, but barks at the class divide. He could live a life of a man who earns 5 figures, not 10, but he doesn't. Ultimately he feels he's due what he's made, and clearly even he, who understands corporations (or the wealthy in general) need further social incentivizing, hasn't done much to close his own wealth gap footprint.
I mean he's talking of funding Just Capital, but the figures mentioned needed to run the firm only accounts for 0.001% of his personal value. How austere is that?
I know FORTUNE isn't the right audience, but taxes are important because they're involuntary. No incentive needed. You'll never convince the Walton family there's more money to be made in being socially responsible than to exploit the way they've been doing. Everyone, if given enough time, feels they've "worked hard" for what they earn.
Social securities of countries have been funded by taxes, not charities, for a reason: when given the option, most opt out of giving to charity, including champagne socialists like Paul Jones here.
-
after posting everything I did I came across this post from Ace of Spades, 100% tea bagger but hot damm one of the smartest bloggers I know!
Wall Streeters Beginning to Panic That Trump Could Win (http://minx.cc:1080/?post=359008)
-
Should be a heck of a debate tonight --- It seems to be broadcasting rather early. Did I read right that it is 8 pm eastern. That would mean the west coast will see it at 5 pm. I guess no one really cares about the west coast in the Republican party any way.
The format is set to be an open debate style (they say Lincoln Douglas style but I doubt it) that should lead to some interesting exchanges. Rand Paul will probably embarrass himself. Huckabee will invoke God at least 3 times. Bush will attempt to be high energy against Trump but it will be phony and not well received.
My prediction -- CF will pick up a large bump, BC will add several points, Trump will settle in and lose several points. JK may pick up a few. The rest not much and will divide up the remaining 30% of support.
This is setting us up for a battle of the outsiders for the next month. Trump has already become more measured in his presentation now that he has jumped the first hurdle. CF has nothing to lose by coming out strong and bashing the shit out of Trump while he smiles and takes it like a man. He may mention his hair at that point.
The media will fawn over CF and give her lots of digital ink.
I predict 18 million viewers.
The Iowa Caucus is still 4.5 months away on February 1. It is the strangest system imagined with none of the delegates beholden to actually cast their votes for the chosen local candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
-
Should be a heck of a debate tonight --- It seems to be broadcasting rather early. Did I read right that it is 8 pm eastern. That would mean the west coast will see it at 5 pm. I guess no one really cares about the west coast in the Republican party any way.
The format is set to be an open debate style (they say Lincoln Douglas style but I doubt it) that should lead to some interesting exchanges. Rand Paul will probably embarrass himself. Huckabee will invoke God at least 3 times. Bush will attempt to be high energy against Trump but it will be phony and not well received.
My prediction -- CF will pick up a large bump, BC will add several points, Trump will settle in and lose several points. JK may pick up a few. The rest not much and will divide up the remaining 30% of support.
This is setting us up for a battle of the outsiders for the next month. Trump has already become more measured in his presentation now that he has jumped the first hurdle. CF has nothing to lose by coming out strong and bashing the shit out of Trump while he smiles and takes it like a man. He may mention his hair at that point.
The media will fawn over CF and give her lots of digital ink.
I predict 18 million viewers.
The Iowa Caucus is still 4.5 months away on February 1. It is the strangest system imagined with none of the delegates beholden to actually cast their votes for the chosen local candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses
I don't think Fiorina gains anything, the only thing she has going for her is that she was CEO of HP, but she did a piss poor job. For some reason a lot of people like Ben Carson, so maybe he'll gain some space. I actually talked to someone that told me about how great Ben Carson was and that he wanted to implement a "flat tax". When I told him most all republicans are wanting to do that same "flat tax" he said Ben Carson was the one that came up with it... So for some reason he's well liked. However I think Kasich will make headway, Jeb! will stagnate and not move, Rubio will probably do good in the debate but just stagnate as well. I'd hope Rand Paul would do okay, but he'll probably do poorly this debate and then pull out. Trump will keep changing the topic to the few things he's learned about from his advisors and say stuff to rile the crowd that isn't relevant, making him just lose a few points.
-
For some reason a lot of people like Ben Carson, so maybe he'll gain some space. I actually talked to someone that told me about how great Ben Carson was and that he wanted to implement a "flat tax". When I told him most all republicans are wanting to do that same "flat tax" he said Ben Carson was the one that came up with it... So for some reason he's well liked.
He's well liked because he seems like a nice guy and he isn't part of the party establishment. His platform is just the boilerplate conservative agenda, so there's nothing there for Republicans to find fault with. He doesn't have a political record that can be attacked. Heck, look at his campaign slogan: Heal + Inspire + Revive. Could you imagine anything more tailor-made to appeal to the religious right?
-
For some reason a lot of people like Ben Carson, so maybe he'll gain some space. I actually talked to someone that told me about how great Ben Carson was and that he wanted to implement a "flat tax". When I told him most all republicans are wanting to do that same "flat tax" he said Ben Carson was the one that came up with it... So for some reason he's well liked.
He's well liked because he seems like a nice guy and he isn't part of the party establishment. His platform is just the boilerplate conservative agenda, so there's nothing there for Republicans to find fault with. He doesn't have a political record that can be attacked. Heck, look at his campaign slogan: Heal + Inspire + Revive. Could you imagine anything more tailor-made to appeal to the religious right?
Yeah, BC is a freak. He is definitely appealing to the uninformed folks. Probably a lot of white guilt going on there.
Jeremy E. You are completely wrong about CF. She will be in the public eye for the first time. CNN gave her a special pass to get into the debate because they are hoping for sparks to fly between her and Trump. Anticipate at least a 5% bump for her throughout the month. My guess is Trump wants her to pick up numbers badly. He would much rather run against her and BC in the primaries than an actual well funded politician. As her and BCs numbers rise Jeb and the rest of the corporate owned dips should go down. Trump would like nothing better than JB to be at 4% come Iowa, even if Trump himself is polling third.
It is much easier to cage two iguanas than to slay a dragon. Trump has played the big field game for 11 seasons now. He knows that it is the last man standing that wins and that it is best to kill the real completion early on. Besides, it will look very good for the Pub party to have a woman and a black man at the top of the heap. That big tent diversity will rub off on Trump.
Trump will not bash BC and CF tonight or for several months as every percent they take they take from Jeb. In fact, my guess is he will focus his bashes on Democrats for some time.
-
For some reason a lot of people like Ben Carson, so maybe he'll gain some space. I actually talked to someone that told me about how great Ben Carson was and that he wanted to implement a "flat tax". When I told him most all republicans are wanting to do that same "flat tax" he said Ben Carson was the one that came up with it... So for some reason he's well liked.
He's well liked because he seems like a nice guy and he isn't part of the party establishment. His platform is just the boilerplate conservative agenda, so there's nothing there for Republicans to find fault with. He doesn't have a political record that can be attacked. Heck, look at his campaign slogan: Heal + Inspire + Revive. Could you imagine anything more tailor-made to appeal to the religious right?
Yeah, BC is a freak. He is definitely appealing to the uninformed folks. Probably a lot of white guilt going on there.
Jeremy E. You are completely wrong about CF. She will be in the public eye for the first time. CNN gave her a special pass to get into the debate because they are hoping for sparks to fly between her and Trump. Anticipate at least a 5% bump for her throughout the month. My guess is Trump wants her to pick up numbers badly. He would much rather run against her and BC in the primaries than an actual well funded politician. As her and BCs numbers rise Jeb and the rest of the corporate owned dips should go down. Trump would like nothing better than JB to be at 4% come Iowa, even if Trump himself is polling third.
It is much easier to cage two iguanas than to slay a dragon. Trump has played the big field game for 11 seasons now. He knows that it is the last man standing that wins and that it is best to kill the real completion early on. Besides, it will look very good for the Pub party to have a woman and a black man at the top of the heap. That big tent diversity will rub off on Trump.
Trump will not bash BC and CF tonight or for several months as every percent they take they take from Jeb. In fact, my guess is he will focus his bashes on Democrats for some time.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump compared his company successes to Fiorinas CEO Failures.
-
For some reason a lot of people like Ben Carson, so maybe he'll gain some space. I actually talked to someone that told me about how great Ben Carson was and that he wanted to implement a "flat tax". When I told him most all republicans are wanting to do that same "flat tax" he said Ben Carson was the one that came up with it... So for some reason he's well liked.
He's well liked because he seems like a nice guy and he isn't part of the party establishment. His platform is just the boilerplate conservative agenda, so there's nothing there for Republicans to find fault with. He doesn't have a political record that can be attacked. Heck, look at his campaign slogan: Heal + Inspire + Revive. Could you imagine anything more tailor-made to appeal to the religious right?
Yeah, BC is a freak. He is definitely appealing to the uninformed folks. Probably a lot of white guilt going on there.
Jeremy E. You are completely wrong about CF. She will be in the public eye for the first time. CNN gave her a special pass to get into the debate because they are hoping for sparks to fly between her and Trump. Anticipate at least a 5% bump for her throughout the month. My guess is Trump wants her to pick up numbers badly. He would much rather run against her and BC in the primaries than an actual well funded politician. As her and BCs numbers rise Jeb and the rest of the corporate owned dips should go down. Trump would like nothing better than JB to be at 4% come Iowa, even if Trump himself is polling third.
It is much easier to cage two iguanas than to slay a dragon. Trump has played the big field game for 11 seasons now. He knows that it is the last man standing that wins and that it is best to kill the real completion early on. Besides, it will look very good for the Pub party to have a woman and a black man at the top of the heap. That big tent diversity will rub off on Trump.
Trump will not bash BC and CF tonight or for several months as every percent they take they take from Jeb. In fact, my guess is he will focus his bashes on Democrats for some time.
It's interesting. In theory, I could agree with you, but as smart as Trump might be in some ways (and I think I'm giving him maybe more credit than he deserves, but maybe not), I actually don't see him as being so calculating. I could definitely see his handlers thinking this strategically, but I more see Trump as being so cocksure of himself in all things that he'll just be winging it and reacting rather than moving forward with any chess-like moves in mind. In any case, I think it should be clear after tonight's debate which of us was right.
-
Anyone know of a way to watch the debate tonight without access to CNN?
EDIT: Google to the rescue....
http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/16/media/cnn-debate-live-streaming/
-
Lucky predictions for me ---- Trump very nice to CF and high fived BC. CF definitely was the big winner for the night and will pick up many, many points. BC and DJT ceded ground IMHO. Trump toned down his shtick. TC kissing DJT's butt for a hope at the VP slot. I don't remember anyone else being there? Oh yeah, that JK guy. Still think he is great at the policy wonk end of things and he might make a great "take Ohio at any cost" VP choice. He knows that and that is his ultimate objective.
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
Since BC is now in favor of the wall and deportation of some sort he could attract a lot of interest in the south. He could conceivably win Iowa based on bible thumping -- pull in second in NH and generate lots of interest in the south.
Best damn primary season ever and only 145 days until the first vote is cast.
-
Lucky predictions for me ---- Trump very nice to CF and high fived BC. CF definitely was the big winner for the night and will pick up many, many points. BC and DJT ceded ground IMHO. Trump toned down his shtick. TC kissing DJT's butt for a hope at the VP slot. I don't remember anyone else being there? Oh yeah, that JK guy. Still think he is great at the policy wonk end of things and he might make a great "take Ohio at any cost" VP choice. He knows that and that is his ultimate objective.
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
Since BC is now in favor of the wall and deportation of some sort he could attract a lot of interest in the south. He could conceivably win Iowa based on bible thumping -- pull in second in NH and generate lots of interest in the south.
Best damn primary season ever and only 145 days until the first vote is cast.
Trump threw multiple slams Fiorinas way, but you were right on the outcome anyways
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Still one has to hand it to the Dems for importing all those votes over the last 20 years. Appears the Pubs were asleep at the wheel.
One could imagine the black voters flipping sides if courted and informed about the effects of massive immigration on their future prospects.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Still one has to hand it to the Dems for importing all those votes over the last 20 years. Appears the Pubs were asleep at the wheel.
One could imagine the black voters flipping sides if courted and informed about the effects of massive immigration on their future prospects.
It's my impression that GWB did quite well with hispanic voters. A quick search yielded a WaPo article saying 44% in 2004 and 35% in 2000.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Still one has to hand it to the Dems for importing all those votes over the last 20 years. Appears the Pubs were asleep at the wheel.
One could imagine the black voters flipping sides if courted and informed about the effects of massive immigration on their future prospects.
It's my impression that GWB did quite well with hispanic voters. A quick search yielded a WaPo article saying 44% in 2004 and 35% in 2000.
You beat me to the punch. The GOP's favorability with Hispanic voters took a nosedive once it became clear that the GOP base (and the politicians that pander to them) was not going to support immigration reform. Romney's self-deportation comments didn't help. Of course those are mild compared to the current Trump-inspired rhetoric.
And the Democrats did not import Hispanic votes. Those new Hispanic voters came from good ol' fashioned demographic shifts within the existing U.S. citizenry.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively. But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively. But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.
The overall national percentage matters not. It only matters the percentage in swing states.
http://www.examiner.com/article/only-4-percent-of-voters-swing-states-are-latino
The link is dated 2012 so let's assume 5% of swing state voters are Latino. At this point one has to assume that 95% of the Latinos will vote democrat.
So the question then is what percentage of the 73% nonlatino white vote has to swing republican. One also should assume that 10% of the 15% black voters in swing states will shift to Republican based on immigration reform. Is the 10% of 15% black vote greater than the 30% of the 5% Latino vote. Not significantly. But one needs to take the long view and assume that the wedge being driven between Hispanics and blacks broadens a bit each year. It is a pretty basic argument -- Dear Black voter, -- The illegal aliens have taken all your jobs thanks to the Democrats.
Much of what I've read about the black middle class voter is that they are tired of the racial politics and more concerned with pay, jobs and economics than a media driven racist party view.
It gets a little complicated when you add in the independents who may swing to republican and subtract the republicans who will sit it out because they don't like Trump, Ben, Jeb or Carly.
Meanwhile the Republican majority Senate, House, State Legislators, and Governors are getting the message as clearly as CF got her face message. You will see some states enact very strict illegal alien laws in the next few years. It could very well be that illegal immigration could be the new litmus test for state politicians. i.e. you are either against illegals or you don't get the vote. One could see 40 states making illegals really illegal in the next 5 years.
Remember gerrymandering districts --- same theory except you are gerrymandering states. States unfriendly to illegals (all red and some blue) would lose Latino populations while friendly states (all blue) would pick up Latinos. It takes a generation but works out nicely for the republicans especially if they can pick up a good percentage of the black vote along the way.
I think the Republicans will eventually thank DJT as they will likely pick up seats in both the Senate and House thanks to his line in the sand stance.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively. But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.
The overall national percentage matters not. It only matters the percentage in swing states.
The link I gave you talks about the swing states using real numbers. They all require Republicans getting 40+% of the Latino vote to win the state.
-
I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as
- First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
- Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
- Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
- We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
- Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.
So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively. But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.
The overall national percentage matters not. It only matters the percentage in swing states.
The link I gave you talks about the swing states using real numbers. They all require Republicans getting 40+% of the Latino vote to win the state.
The first one said nothing about swing states and was a propaganda piece. The second had too much information for me to spend the day deciphering.
I guess if the assumption is that nothing else changes the second one could be correct. Percentages are a bitch. 1 white nonlatino is worth 14 latinos, 1 black equals 3 latino. And don't forget the union voters. Ask yourself -- are they more likely to vote for or against illegals? From the Democratic base the unions will be easiest to flip. Sure the union bosses will still fund the Dems but a lot of their members may be voting Pub. Getting out the base is a huge deal as well.
-
I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as
- First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
- Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
- Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
- We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
- Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.
So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.
Well I can think of only one candidate not corporate sponsored.
-
Meanwhile the Dems are twisting in the wind. It seems the immigration debate will put them at odds with their black supports. It will be interesting to see how, once the pubs openly court the black vote based on immigration reform, that the Dems spin that to try to keep both their latino and black votes intact. My guess will be they will throw the latinos under the bus as they have nowhere else to go and their vote only matters in Florida.
There's a pretty good argument that this election will hinge on the percentage of Hispanic votes Republican get, with the minimum needed to win the election somewhere over 40%. I don't fully buy into it, but it's interesting nonetheless, and I think you'd enjoy reading it:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2015/07/17/republicans-need-47-pct-latino-vote-to-win-white-house/
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2015/07/17/the-latino-threshold-in-2016-to-win/
Hard to imagine that -- Seems GWB did it twice without a huge percentage? I've seen stats before that showed Romney would have won if he had gotten out just 3-4% more of the base in the Pub camp. Then one has to count independents, blacks and Democrats that may swing to someone like Trump or even CF.
Bush had 35% and 44% of the Latino vote in 2000 and 2004, respectively. But the share of the electorate that is Latino has nearly doubled since 2000.
The overall national percentage matters not. It only matters the percentage in swing states.
The link I gave you talks about the swing states using real numbers. They all require Republicans getting 40+% of the Latino vote to win the state.
The first one said nothing about swing states and was a propaganda piece. The second had too much information for me to spend the day deciphering.
I guess if the assumption is that nothing else changes the second one could be correct.
Fox News is a propaganda outlet for Latinos? Interesting. Anyway, yes, I was talking about the second link, which if you had read, would answer the questions you've asked since.
As for the assumption that if "nothing else changes the second one could be correct" you're right, that is an assumption. But, Romney won a near-record percentage of the white votes in 2008. So the question would be whether the Republican candidate in 2016 would be able to set a new record for percentage of the white vote.
-
I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as
- First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
- Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
- Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
- We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
- Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.
So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.
Can you please eleborate on this? The lack of slavery somehow means we have equal rights for everyone, is that what you are saying? That we did not need the civil rights act of 1964? That women, without the ERA, somehow have equal rights because no slavery. I must be misunderstanding you. Please tell me I am.
-
I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as
- First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
- Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
- Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
- We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
- Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.
So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.
For the Republican Primary, the closest candidate that fits your description is IMO Rand Paul. Unsure how you feel on foreign policy so his anti-interventionist position could be significant one way or the other.
-
Foxlatino? Um yeah, I would guess biased as CNNwhite would be.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/newsmax-poll-second-republican/2015/09/17/id/691953/
Here is the newsmax poll of debate winners. I wouldn't have guessed Trump with such a huge margain.
Donald Trump 46.26%
Carly Fiorina 20.11%
Sen. Marco Rubio 9.32%
Dr. Ben Carson 9.22%
Sen. Ted Cruz 5.67%
Gov. John Kasich 3.10%
Gov. Chris Christie 2.14%
Gov. Jeb Bush 1.45%
Sen. Rand Paul 1.27%
Gov. Mike Huckabee 1.04%
Gov. Scott Walker 0.41%
I would have ranked similarly with less margin for Trump and higher for CF and lower for BC. JB 1.45% That is freaking hilarious. His staff is crying at their office at this very moment. That squirrel has no nuts!
Outsiders/non republican/non politicians have 76% of the vote. Wow!!!
Regarding could the Republican candidate take a much higher percentage of white votes and black votes than MR did. Why yes they can.
The white, black, latino race baiting is getting very old though. We are moving towards a post racial identity in this country. I haven't identified racially since like 1976. The focus has shifted to economics and class. As in the middle class is getting the shit end of the turd.
Drudge ---
"By the end of the event, Trump, who is number one in the Washington Examiner's presidential power rankings, received 61 percent of votes. At a distant second place with 14 percent was Carly Fiorina. In third, Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul tied with 6 percent." http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trump-is-runaway-favorite-in-drudge-poll
CNN record viewership at 20 million (I missed by 2 million in yesterdays forcastimate) http://www.donaldjtrump.com/news/trumpmania-gop-debate-sets-cnn-ratings-record
So yeah, around 50% of the viewers (10 Million people) gave the debate to Trump. That even though he did a shit job. Amazing really.
I didn't think he could keep up the momentum but apparently there are a lot of pissed off disenfranchised folks in the good old USA that ain't gonna take it anymore.
So the question is how will the jockeying go for the next month until the next big event. Trump won't say as much stupid stuff -- CF will be out touting her numbers. BC will be quiet as always and fade away by December. Could Rubio make a power move? Could he be the VP to Trumps P? Will he flip the latino vote in Florida? Will he speak in Spanglish? Will CF have a makeover?
And what about Billary and the Socialist? Will JB enter the race as Obama alluded to yesterday? Will that knock Billary to second place the day he announces?
Stay tuned for all the exciting turns!!
-
Nate Silver over at 538 suggests that Trump has essentially no chance to win the GOP nomination.
The argument is that establishment republicans think he is destructive to their brand. He's engaged in a hostile takeover of the republican party, and the lasting damage he could cause to their current coalition of fiscal, social, and national security conservatives would be fatal to the long term survival of the party.
With that thought in mind, they are prepared to sink him at any cost, including party suicide by pursuing a brokered convention that would fracture the party base and definitely lose them this election, but at least preserve the two party system for a future one.
I don't know if his analysis is correct, but it sounds plausible to me. Trump opposes the GOP platform on taxes and health care, and he waffles on abortion. His only real campaign issue, immigration, is so destructive to the party's long term electability that even the other current republican candidates are fighting him on it. If they really think he means to kill the party, I think they have the power to stop him. They're just hoping he self destructs first so it doesn't have to come to that.
-
Nate Silver over at 538 suggests that Trump has essentially no chance to win the GOP nomination.
The argument is that establishment republicans think he is destructive to their brand. He's engaged in a hostile takeover of the republican party, and the lasting damage he could cause to their current coalition of fiscal, social, and national security conservatives would be fatal to the long term survival of the party.
With that thought in mind, they are prepared to sink him at any cost, including party suicide by pursuing a brokered convention that would fracture the party base and definitely lose them this election, but at least preserve the two party system for a future one.
I don't know if his analysis is correct, but it sounds plausible to me. Trump opposes the GOP platform on taxes and health care, and he waffles on abortion. His only real campaign issue, immigration, is so destructive to the party's long term electability that even the other current republican candidates are fighting him on it. If they really think he means to kill the party, I think they have the power to stop him. They're just hoping he self destructs first so it doesn't have to come to that.
But then a brokered convention would give Trump a credible excuse to run third party, regardless of his 'loyalty' pledge. This would certainly split the vote, causing the Dem candidate to win no matter who was nominated; but also potentially destroy the Republican party anyway, in much the way the Whig party ceased to exist. Nate Silver might be correct, he usually is, but if Trump's long term goal is just to destroy the Republican party, he most certainly still can. This is going to be fun to watch.
-
But then a brokered convention would give Trump a credible excuse to run third party, regardless of his 'loyalty' pledge. This would certainly split the vote, causing the Dem candidate to win no matter who was nominated; but also potentially destroy the Republican party anyway, in much the way the Whig party ceased to exist. Nate Silver might be correct, he usually is, but if Trump's long term goal is just to destroy the Republican party, he most certainly still can. This is going to be fun to watch.
What would Trump theoretically gain from destroying the party?
-
But then a brokered convention would give Trump a credible excuse to run third party, regardless of his 'loyalty' pledge. This would certainly split the vote, causing the Dem candidate to win no matter who was nominated; but also potentially destroy the Republican party anyway, in much the way the Whig party ceased to exist. Nate Silver might be correct, he usually is, but if Trump's long term goal is just to destroy the Republican party, he most certainly still can. This is going to be fun to watch.
What would Trump theoretically gain from destroying the party?
Publicity
-
This just in Ben Carson ties Trump in Iowa poll.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Monmouth-University-Monmouth-Poll/2015/08/31/id/672824/
Those freaking racist Republicans are up to it again! lol
Still supporting Trump Bob? Still think he'll win?
Aside from his immigration nonsense I found myself agreeing with him an awful lot last night.
Pro Progressive taxation? Check
Non interventionist foreign policy?Check
No carried interest deduction? Check
G w Bush caused ISIS and made us unsafe? Check
Not bad. I could go along with all of those. Maybe he is a NY democrat, which you must be too.
Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage.
-
I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as
- First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
- Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
- Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
- We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
- Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.
So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.
Can you please eleborate on this? The lack of slavery somehow means we have equal rights for everyone, is that what you are saying? That we did not need the civil rights act of 1964? That women, without the ERA, somehow have equal rights because no slavery. I must be misunderstanding you. Please tell me I am.
I think "misheard" would be more apt, if you can have such a thing on internet forums. You're thinking of the 13th amendment, not the 14th (which is what I referred to.)
-
So I still want Kasich to take the nomination, and someone asked me a question I hadn't thought of... Who do I want to be his VP? I'd probably say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, but I don't think either are possible. Marco Rubio is probably most likely but I don't like that idea. Not that I really care who VP is seeing as they don't really do much, but I think if Rubio is VP this election, he will have very good odds of being President in the future, which I don't necessarily want.
-
So I still want Kasich to take the nomination, and someone asked me a question I hadn't thought of... Who do I want to be his VP? I'd probably say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, but I don't think either are possible. Marco Rubio is probably most likely but I don't like that idea. Not that I really care who VP is seeing as they don't really do much, but I think if Rubio is VP this election, he will have very good odds of being President in the future, which I don't necessarily want.
Marco Rubio is is a very good position to be tapped as VP by anyone. He is very popular in a very important swing state. As for increasing his odds of winning the nomination in the future, it certainly does that, but much can happen in 8 years.
-
So I still want Kasich to take the nomination, and someone asked me a question I hadn't thought of... Who do I want to be his VP? I'd probably say Rand Paul or Jeb Bush, but I don't think either are possible. Marco Rubio is probably most likely but I don't like that idea. Not that I really care who VP is seeing as they don't really do much, but I think if Rubio is VP this election, he will have very good odds of being President in the future, which I don't necessarily want.
Marco Rubio is is a very good position to be tapped as VP by anyone. He is very popular in a very important swing state. As for increasing his odds of winning the nomination in the future, it certainly does that, but much can happen in 8 years.
I agree
-
I'm going to take a huge step back from the discussion, and ask for advice. I'll probably vote in the Republican primary, but the whole thing is a wash of uninspiring candidates at the moment. I would describe my views as
- First and foremost, classic liberal, emphasizing property rights and personal autonomy
- Libertarian, to put a more modern title on it, but with an emphasis on economic issues. I think the hot social issues don't compare in importance to the things that keep our country chronically going into deeper debt and taking too much money in taxes.
- Interested in a candidate who's not strongly influenced by corporate donors. The massive consolidation of power in the federal government allows for state-sponsored barriers against fair competition, and corporations are able, by their clout and political machines, to seize that control so that if there ever was a potential for a large state to be more beneficial than harmful, it is undone by corporations shaping the state to their wills.
- We don't need any more civil rights acts, nor anything of the sort. We already have the 14th amendment; everything else is just a hollow and counterproductive gesture to look proactive in the face of failed enforcement of existing law.
- Police are out of control, and need a cultural change to accept more risk in the name of gaining back the trust they've lost.
So, would anyone give a suggestion? Is there anyone I can vote for in the primary? In the general? Based on the third point, I'm almost tempted to vote for Sanders in a general election and hope for his non-corporate leadership while counting on Congress to be a roadblock to all his major policy goals.
Can you please eleborate on this? The lack of slavery somehow means we have equal rights for everyone, is that what you are saying? That we did not need the civil rights act of 1964? That women, without the ERA, somehow have equal rights because no slavery. I must be misunderstanding you. Please tell me I am.
I think "misheard" would be more apt, if you can have such a thing on internet forums. You're thinking of the 13th amendment, not the 14th (which is what I referred to.)
Gah. I am sorry. Yes, I was thinking of the thirteenth. I should have googled to check instead of relying on my memory.
-
No carried interest deduction? Check
Maybe he is a NY democrat
Even Schumer seems to be on board with this. Perhaps we'll see pigs flying after all.
Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage.
Don't think Carson "went along with" Trump on this (emphasis added):
CARSON: But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations.
He did go on to say:
CARSON: But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.
It would be good to understand more than a soundbite's worth of what he meant there. One can parse that in different ways, particularly through different political filters.
-
No carried interest deduction? Check
Maybe he is a NY democrat
Even Schumer seems to be on board with this. Perhaps we'll see pigs flying after all.
Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage.
Don't think Carson "went along with" Trump on this (emphasis added):
CARSON: But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations.
He did go on to say:
CARSON: But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.
It would be good to understand more than a soundbite's worth of what he meant there. One can parse that in different ways, particularly through different political filters.
Oh I watched the debate.
The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.
He is either pandering to right wing nut jobs, or he is a nut job himself. Or both.
-
The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.
I'm guessing you are referring to the second part of what was quoted, as the whole quote is italicized. Do you agree with "we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations"?
As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade". Has there been any clarification?
-
There is a standard schedule for immunizations. There is no alternative schedule. There is no evidence that the standard schedule gives "way to many in too short a period of time."
-
The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.
I'm guessing you are referring to the second part of what was quoted, as the whole quote is italicized. Do you agree with "we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations"?
As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade". Has there been any clarification?
Regardless of whether he meant a week, month, year or decade, from what I've heard, he's just plain wrong regards to 'too many in too short a period of time'. At least that is the claim of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Considering Carson's reputation, it's too bad he is catering to this paranoia.
http://www.npr.org/2015/09/17/441222497/an-alternative-vaccination-schedule-actually-presents-more-risks-than-benefits
-
For a second there, I thought someone was anti-vaccinations, and I was going to have to get away from this post as I've argued about that subject far too much already. Glad to hear that's not the case.
-
In the CNN debate, did any of you notice how often various GOP candidates said they'd abolish the IRS? That seemed like totally out of
left right field. It was crazy. I mean, sure, I get it - low taxes - most Republicans want that. But come on - abolish the IRS? They sounded like loons* lunatics.
* Sorry if I offended any Canadians. Your Loonie dollar coins are lovely and not in the least bit crazy.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
I don't think Malaysia41 is disagreeing with you re: Alexander Hamilton. There's an increasing consensus, however, that Andrew Jackson needs to be replaced on the 20s, which seems like a prime opportunity to put a woman on our national currency: http://www.womenon20s.org/ I'd like to see Sacajewa on the 20, because screw Andrew Jackson, but since she's already been on currency I think that's unlikely.
I grew up near a town called Jackson (after Andrew Jackson) that was a hop, skip, and a jump away from the National Trail of Tears Park. When I pointed out the irony of this geography, people looked at me like I had just skinned their puppy--I was denigrating their city and what was I, the PC police? and yadda yadda yadda.
Most importantly, why was this a question at the GOP debate (and why the $10 when the movement is clearly for the $20)? From my understanding, the questions were AWFUL. (What would your Secret Service code name be? Seriously? Is this a deciding factor for some voters?) It seems like the questions were meant to create conversation (see: our conversation on currency) without giving a lot of opportunity to talk actual policy...
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
The problem with this '1/10' statement is that it is obviously pulled out of the air. It presumes that someone has actually compiled and quantified the accomplishments of Alexander Hamilton and EVERY woman in the U.S. over the last 300 years such that they can certify that NO woman has contributed more than 9.999% of that of Alexander Hamilton. The notion is ridiculous and belittles the accomplishments of women in general as it presumes that one can just KNOW that NO WOMAN even amounted to 1/10 of Alexander Hamilton.
Why not simply say that Alexander Hamilton contributed much more to the United States than Andrew Jackson and that if anyone should be replaced it should be Jackson and leave it at that?
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
Well I think it depends on who in the country were are talking about. I don't think Hamilton did a lot for women or African Americans, of his time period because honestly what did those groups gain by our independence (as a country).
Think about what Abigail Adams wrote to her husband “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
I would disagree that Hamilton did "remember the ladies".
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
Well I think it depends on who in the country were are talking about. I don't think Hamilton did a lot for women or African Americans, of his time period because honestly what did those groups gain by our independence (as a country).
Think about what Abigail Adams wrote to her husband “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
I would disagree that Hamilton did "remember the ladies".
Good point. It really wasn't until the 20th century that women were even taken seriously to consider that they could make serious contributions beyond being wives and mothers. As I recall, Adam's reply to Abigail was to essentially laugh off the idea that women needed more rights claiming that men only were masters in name and were really subject to the women in their lives. Very condescending.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
The problem with this '1/10' statement is that it is obviously pulled out of the air. It presumes that someone has actually compiled and quantified the accomplishments of Alexander Hamilton and EVERY woman in the U.S. over the last 300 years such that they can certify that NO woman has contributed more than 9.999% of that of Alexander Hamilton. The notion is ridiculous and belittles the accomplishments of women in general as it presumes that one can just KNOW that NO WOMAN even amounted to 1/10 of Alexander Hamilton.
Why not simply say that Alexander Hamilton contributed much more to the United States than Andrew Jackson and that if anyone should be replaced it should be Jackson and leave it at that?
Exactly. Make a case for Hamilton and leave it at that.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
Rachel Faucette (https://todayshistorylesson.wordpress.com/tag/rachel-faucette/)
I get it's an honor to be on currency. I understand why people are passionate about these things. I'm not. Hell, I only use cash a few times a year. I'm starting to forget who's on each bill, and before I read this today I'm certain I would not have equated the $10 bill with Hamilton.
I believe we do past, present, and future women a dis-service to ignore this request/movement. After all, historically women make up about 50% of our population. It takes a village to raise a child. Hamilton/Washington/Lincoln/etc. all had a little help along the way.
-
I do not think they should take Alexander Hamilton off of the $10 bill to be replaced by a woman. I'm not sexist, but no woman has done as much for this nation as Alexander Hamilton. One of our founding fathers, he wrote a majority of the federalist papers(which are the best interpretations of the constitution that we have), got us out of debt after the Revolutionary War, was the first secretary of the treasury, established the national bank, and was George Washingtons right hand man throughout both of his terms. No woman has come close to doing that much for the United States, it's a joke and it's a disgrace to even consider replacing him with someone who hasn't done 1/10th as much for this country as him(as no woman has). That being said, the only people from the debate that wouldn't replace him are Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, two of my least favorite candidates... Sad day.
Ted Cruz was the only one with the correct answer to the ten dollar bill question. I was shocked that I found myself agreeing with Ted Cruz!
I agree that Alexander Hamilton should stay - but I'd argue there are plenty of women who did a lot for this country. You don't need to make a claim about the relative importance of women (1/10th?) vs Alexander Hamilton - it's off putting / offensive, and it does nothing for your case for Alexander Hamilton, who, by the way, I agree - deserves to be on our currency!
Whatever happens, Andrew Jackson needs the boot. He had no regard for non-white human life. History does not judge him well. He has no place on the twenty. Any of the women proposed by the US mint would be better than Jackson.
It appears the mint chose the ten because it's next up for a re-design - to counteract counterfeiting. So I would propose bumping Hamilton to the twenty when its time.
Yes plenty of woman did a lot for this country, I agree. But none have done 1/10th what Alexander Hamilton has done for this country. If you want to give an example of a woman that you think has done 1/10th as much as Alexander Hamilton, we can go over what each has accomplished and attempt to figure out if it's true. I think they very well could of if they were given a chance, but as no woman has been given the chance to hold any significant position up until recently, they haven't been able to do as much.
The problem with this '1/10' statement is that it is obviously pulled out of the air. It presumes that someone has actually compiled and quantified the accomplishments of Alexander Hamilton and EVERY woman in the U.S. over the last 300 years such that they can certify that NO woman has contributed more than 9.999% of that of Alexander Hamilton. The notion is ridiculous and belittles the accomplishments of women in general as it presumes that one can just KNOW that NO WOMAN even amounted to 1/10 of Alexander Hamilton.
Why not simply say that Alexander Hamilton contributed much more to the United States than Andrew Jackson and that if anyone should be replaced it should be Jackson and leave it at that?
It was pulled out of air, if someone wants to come up with a woman to compare to him we can do so. I'm guessing the woman will have contributed even much less than 10% to this country to be honest. I believe if woman were treated equally throughout USAs History, this would not be the case, but they weren't given the oppurtunites that men were. I bet if woman were treated equally throughout USAs history, it would be a much better place today.
-
I'm guessing the woman will have contributed even much less than 10% to this country to be honest. I believe if woman were treated equally throughout USAs History, this would not be the case, but they weren't given the oppurtunites that men were.
That seems to be the crux of this issue. They're not proposing to put a woman on a bill to recognize her individual contributions as measured against men, they're proposing putting a woman on a bill in recognition of the fact that women were actively prevented from contributing in the same way as men, and some of them managed to contribute in meaningful ways anyway.
We also don't have many qualified black people from the days of our founding fathers to feature on our currency, but I don't think anyone would argue that's because black people in America in the 1700s weren't working hard enough or accomplishing enough.
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
You think Jeb Bush is "not even trying"? lol
I think Kasich has a better chance, he is the only Republican that wins a mock election poll against Hillary in New Hampshire.
He's also the only Republican that wins a mock election poll against Hillary in Ohio.
New Hampshire is a major swing state and Ohio is considered the ultimate swing state.
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate. He is so low energy that he barely registers.
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243
It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah, Trump is really, really, realy not trying in Florida. Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.
John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.
Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate. He is so low energy that he barely registers.
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243
It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah, Trump is really, really, realy not trying in Florida. Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.
John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.
Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.
I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate. He is so low energy that he barely registers.
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243
It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah, Trump is really, really, realy not trying in Florida. Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.
John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.
Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.
I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump
Since when did "low-energy" become an insult? We're not discussing race horses, tennis players, or even atomic electron orbitals. We're discussing presidential candidates.
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate. He is so low energy that he barely registers.
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243
It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah, Trump is really, really, realy not trying in Florida. Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.
John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.
Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.
I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump
Since when did "low-energy" become an insult? We're not discussing race horses, tennis players, or even atomic electron orbitals. We're discussing presidential candidates.
I guess only because low-energy candidates get less talking time during debates than they could otherwise, but idk. I was just resaying what Bob said. Trump oftenly uses it as an insult so maybe ask him
-
"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.
-
"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.
Kasich would be and absolutely great president! Probably the best in our lifetime. Unfortunately he is running for VP against Rubio and won't win the P spot. He actually could do some very good work there. Perhaps more so than if he were President.
"boring, clumsy and probably competent" doesn't really resonate like "low energy"
Jeb may never overcome that hanging around his neck. Did you see him and Trump in the debate? Trump totally owned him like a pet dog. Sad really. Is low energy an insult if it is both obvious and true?
-
Just thought I'd drop this very good interview with Bernie, worth the 1.5 hours to watch/listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKx_1F7mdI
-
"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.
Kasich would be and absolutely great president! Probably the best in our lifetime. Unfortunately he is running for VP against Rubio and won't win the P spot. He actually could do some very good work there. Perhaps more so than if he were President.
"boring, clumsy and probably competent" doesn't really resonate like "low energy"
Jeb may never overcome that hanging around his neck. Did you see him and Trump in the debate? Trump totally owned him like a pet dog. Sad really. Is low energy an insult if it is both obvious and true?
As I said in my original comment, it's an insult and it's true.
-
I'm a democrat voter and I do like Kasich. He sounds pramatic. Except for all the Planned Parenthood crap.
-
Considering there won't be any actual caucuses or primaries until February, I question how much any of this matters for someone like Bush who has the backing to stay in the race for the long term. In five months, I predict the field will be reduced to Bush, Trump and a handful of others. Eventually it will come down to an establishment candidate (likely Bush) and Trump. At that point, the anybody-but-Trump vote will outnumber the Trump vote.
-
Jeb Bush wins Florida without even trying which is currently the largest swing state. Jeb Bush is the best chance for the Republicans to win. The current polls are based on majority vote, which don't really matter. If Ted Cruz gets 90% of the Texas vote his overall numbers will be inflated with numbers that don't matter.
You miss the point that JB is trying extremely hard and just registered as 2% in the debate. He is so low energy that he barely registers.
http://www.saintpetersblog.com/archives/240243
It appears that Trump is kicking Jeb's butt in Florida polls --- and yeah, Trump is really, really, realy not trying in Florida. Rubio should tie up that state nicely as the VP.
John Kasich will tie up Ohio nicely as the Secretary of State or whatever else he wants.
Biden will kick HRC butt in Florida.
I still think low energy Bush has a better chance of getting the nomination than Trump
Since when did "low-energy" become an insult? We're not discussing race horses, tennis players, or even atomic electron orbitals. We're discussing presidential candidates.
I guess only because low-energy candidates get less talking time during debates than they could otherwise, but idk. I was just resaying what Bob said. Trump oftenly uses it as an insult so maybe ask him
Yeah, I'm aware of the origin of the insult (Trump), and I didn't mean to imply that you were the one parrotting it - I just happened to quote your quote of Bob W. I'm just surprised that Trump's "low energy" comment has gained quite the traction that it has.
-
Considering there won't be any actual caucuses or primaries until February, I question how much any of this matters for someone like Bush who has the backing to stay in the race for the long term. In five months, I predict the field will be reduced to Bush, Trump and a handful of others. Eventually it will come down to an establishment candidate (likely Bush) and Trump. At that point, the anybody-but-Trump vote will outnumber the Trump vote.
This exactly.
I think we're looking at a Bush-Clinton election year again. Unless Biden gets cray out there. But I don't think it would be totally impossible that Clinton could be Biden's VP. But who knows.
-
Just thought I'd drop this very good interview with Bernie, worth the 1.5 hours to watch/listen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKx_1F7mdI
Thanks for the link Zoltani. Way more interesting than the recent cnn debate/circus.
-
If Jeb Bush gets the nomination, Florida will not be as close as in the past. According to wiki, Obama won by 2.82% in 2008 and 0.88% in 2012. JB will win Florida by at least 10%. However, I think he will lose the election to Hillary. I wish Americans were more original, but like most people we favor things that are familiar. Get ready for another Clinton vs. Bush election.
-
I was impressed with his ability to answer tough questions in this clip
http://youtu.be/EujLpZKJ15k
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The problem is the italicized portion of his quotation which is quite simply factually incorrect. Period.
I'm guessing you are referring to the second part of what was quoted, as the whole quote is italicized. Do you agree with "we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations"?
As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade". Has there been any clarification?
Regardless, the advice is not scientifically based. Each time a new vaccine is approved by the FDA it has to be tested for safety in its own right. And then it also has to be tested in combination with all the other vaccines already on the ACIP vaccine schedule for safety as a part of the routine vaccination schedule. So the testing is conducted in rigorous clinical trials as the vaccines would be delivered in the real world. For Carson to suggest that somehow individual pediatricians would be able to figure out for their anecdotal caseload that there was a systematic problem is completely unscientific. Vaccines are probably the best thing medicine and public health have done in the last 65 years.
-
"Low energy" is a trumpism. He's an insult politician. That's what he does. And as with all insult artists, he preys on actual weakness. Jeb is boring and clumsy. But he would probably be a competent president (for a republican,) as would Kasich.
He's Trump the Insult Comic Politician (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=triumph+the+insult+comic+dog)
-
As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade". Has there been any clarification?
Regardless, ....
Eh, seems a tempest in a teapot - Carson hit the main nail square on the head with the "vaccines don't cause autism" comment. If however he is suggesting "wait a decade" then I'll rethink. Seems more like he's concentrating on the end goal of getting kids vaccinated and if that requires providing some parents the option to go a few weeks in between shots, that's better than going for all or nothing and getting nothing.
Again, I'd like to know his operating definition of "too many in too short...". Without knowing that, we can all speculate and assume all we want....
-
25 pages later... Im a right liberal, now I know. 33.3% Right, 22.2% Liberal
-
As for the "way too many in too short a period of time" (that's what you find objectionable, correct?) - I'd like to hear whether he means "wait a week" vs. "wait a decade". Has there been any clarification?
Regardless, ....
Eh, seems a tempest in a teapot - Carson hit the main nail square on the head with the "vaccines don't cause autism" comment. If however he is suggesting "wait a decade" then I'll rethink. Seems more like he's concentrating on the end goal of getting kids vaccinated and if that requires providing some parents the option to go a few weeks in between shots, that's better than going for all or nothing and getting nothing.
Again, I'd like to know his operating definition of "too many in too short...". Without knowing that, we can all speculate and assume all we want....
And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.
Now WHY he was wrong is worthy of speculation, as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks. Either way, he doesn't look good for a man whose chief distinction is being a brilliant doctor.
-
As an aside, I find Carson's cadence very distracting.
I know he was a stud neurosurgeon from Hopkins. But the real studs die on the job. They don't quit their professorships and join the politics clown car.
And the way he talks. It's like he has psychomotor retardation. He seems to move at a glacial pace.
He's got this Forrest Gump like affect. And it's just so distracting.
-
And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.
It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?
...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.
No other possible explanation?
-
And the way he talks. It's like he has psychomotor retardation. He seems to move at a glacial pace.
He's got this Forrest Gump like affect. And it's just so distracting.
That's funny, I thought the same thing watching him. He kept rolling his eyes up and taking long pauses. Even when he did finally commit to what he wanted to say he would take forever getting it out. After all that suspense I would expect poetry but it would just be a so-so response.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.
It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?
...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.
No other possible explanation?
I can't think of any, can you think you? I mean that honestly, not sarcastically.
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus. Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you. Can you pick out the idiot here? Regarding Carson's cadence, autism comes to mind.
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus. Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you. Can you pick out the idiot here? Regarding Carson's cadence, autism comes to mind.
Bob,
This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.
-
Watched a video clip the other day talking about how trump would have done bette investing entirely in index funds than he did through all his ventures
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.
It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?
...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.
No other possible explanation?
I can't think of any, can you think you? I mean that honestly, not sarcastically.
One that came to mind: he recognizes that, despite the evidence of no autism, etc. link to vaccinations, some people still are afraid to vaccinate their children. Rather than choosing an offensive (e.g., "you ignorant POS, vaccinate your kids now!") approach that may feel good to say but is unlikely to achieve its desired result, he's saying "ok, spread 'em out a few weeks or so rather than all together" under the presumption that vaccinations in some reasonably short time are far better than no vaccinations at all.
This would be somewhat analogous to the "lump sum vs. dollar cost average (DCA) vs. never" approach to investing. Statistically, lump sum is best. But DCA isn't far behind lump sum and is much better than never investing. So it's best to advise people to do lump sum, but not fight about it if they prefer DCA.
Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind. Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.
Sanders is Roman?
-
And again, one doesn't need to speculate or assume what he meant because no matter how you interpret it, Carson was wrong.
It does increase the degree of difficulty of the dive/debate if one allows any assumption, e.g., "no matter how you interpret" - are you sure you want to go that far?
...as either he is ignorant about the science of vaccination schedules or he is simply too cowardly to totally repudiate the vaccination paranoia folks.
No other possible explanation?
I can't think of any, can you think you? I mean that honestly, not sarcastically.
One that came to mind: he recognizes that, despite the evidence of no autism, etc. link to vaccinations, some people still are afraid to vaccinate their children. Rather than choosing an offensive (e.g., "you ignorant POS, vaccinate your kids now!") approach that may feel good to say but is unlikely to achieve its desired result, he's saying "ok, spread 'em out a few weeks or so rather than all together" under the presumption that vaccinations in some reasonably short time are far better than no vaccinations at all.
This would be somewhat analogous to the "lump sum vs. dollar cost average (DCA) vs. never" approach to investing. Statistically, lump sum is best. But DCA isn't far behind lump sum and is much better than never investing. So it's best to advise people to do lump sum, but not fight about it if they prefer DCA.
Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind. Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.
I don't know what his intent was, but that's not reflective of what he said:
CARSON: But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time. And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.
He's implying or allowing people to infer that there is scientific evidence we are giving too many and that it could harm your baby. If he wanted to say what you are suggesting he could have said something like. "There is absolutely no medical evidence that giving certain vaccinations at the same time as called for in the standard vaccine schedule is at all harmful. No evidence whatsoever. Certainly parents can ask their pediatrician to stretch out the vaccinations overtime, and I think most pediatricians will reluctantly comply. However, parents should be aware that delaying vaccination places your child and other people's children at risk of getting sick. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland occurred because people did not get vaccinated. Vaccines were created because these diseases are deadly."
-
Carson is trying to have it both ways. It's disingenuous and basically lacking in principles.
Typical politician.
-
Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind. Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.
...he could have said something like. "There is absolutely no medical evidence that giving certain vaccinations at the same time as called for in the standard vaccine schedule is at all harmful. No evidence whatsoever. Certainly parents can ask their pediatrician to stretch out the vaccinations overtime, and I think most pediatricians will reluctantly comply. However, parents should be aware that delaying vaccination places your child and other people's children at risk of getting sick. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland occurred because people did not get vaccinated. Vaccines were created because these diseases are deadly."
Yes, that would indeed be much less ambiguous. Would that all politicians took care to be so clear on all subjects. And this subject seems to cut across the political spectrum, with both the far left and far right (from what little polling has been done) being most opposed to vaccinations. Of course, as Kris notes, if they were clear about everything they probably wouldn't be successful politicians....
Still seems unfair to paint Carson and Trump with the same brush on the whole vaccination issue, given Carson's unequivocal comment on autism. Don't know about the timing, etc. part. Fortunately there is a lot of time for this (and other issues besides) before both parties pick candidates - let alone until Nov. 2106.
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus. Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you. Can you pick out the idiot here? Regarding Carson's cadence, autism comes to mind.
Bob,
This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.
. It appears you are doing the painting here. Goodwins law in action. My point was simply that Sanders had nothing to gain and in fact probably lost 10s of thousands of votes by appearing at liberty while Trump undoubtedly picked up thousands of Iowa votes by holding his bible up at a christian event. It is often inferred that Trump is intellectually challenged yet in this contrast he obviously made a much wiser choice than BS.
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus.
Sanders is Roman?
No idea, I was talking about socialists.
-
Note that this may not be what Carson has in mind. Or maybe it is - we really can't tell from a 1 or 2 sentence ambiguous sound bite.
...he could have said something like. "There is absolutely no medical evidence that giving certain vaccinations at the same time as called for in the standard vaccine schedule is at all harmful. No evidence whatsoever. Certainly parents can ask their pediatrician to stretch out the vaccinations overtime, and I think most pediatricians will reluctantly comply. However, parents should be aware that delaying vaccination places your child and other people's children at risk of getting sick. The recent measles outbreak at Disneyland occurred because people did not get vaccinated. Vaccines were created because these diseases are deadly."
Yes, that would indeed be much less ambiguous. Would that all politicians took care to be so clear on all subjects. And this subject seems to cut across the political spectrum, with both the far left and far right (from what little polling has been done) being most opposed to vaccinations. Of course, as Kris notes, if they were clear about everything they probably wouldn't be successful politicians....
Still seems unfair to paint Carson and Trump with the same brush on the whole vaccination issue, given Carson's unequivocal comment on autism. Don't know about the timing, etc. part. Fortunately there is a lot of time for this (and other issues besides) before both parties pick candidates - let alone until Nov. 2106.
I don't think I said Carson and Trump were the same on this issue. Trump was absolutely wrong and irresponsible. Clearly Carson was less bad, but still wrong and irresponsible. However, Carson is a physician and has a special responsibility to provide accurate and educational medical information. He must be held to a higher standard because of his profession and the greater credence given to his words on the subject. Any semi-aware person should know that Trump is a buffoon (although sadly not enough do). But a physician, and a renowned physician at that, is more likely to be believed.
Unfortunately this isn't the first time Carson has been disingenuous about medical issues. For example, he came down hard on Planned Parenthood over their collection of fetal tissue donated for medical research. However Carson has personally done medical research with fetal tissue from aborted fetuses! He even claimed--in writing--that he had never done fetal tissue research. But he published a paper stating that he did just that!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-distances-himself-fetal-tissue-research
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/14/dr-ben-carson-fetal-tissue-research-dimwitted-slander/
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus. Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you. Can you pick out the idiot here? Regarding Carson's cadence, autism comes to mind.
Bob,
This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.
. It appears you are doing the painting here. Goodwins law in action. My point was simply that Sanders had nothing to gain and in fact probably lost 10s of thousands of votes by appearing at liberty while Trump undoubtedly picked up thousands of Iowa votes by holding his bible up at a christian event. It is often inferred that Trump is intellectually challenged yet in this contrast he obviously made a much wiser choice than BS.
BS did great at Liberty U. The audience cheered him on - a few even applauded during the discussion about babies in the womb. He didn't pander to the crowd, nor did he insult them. I don't see how his talk at Liberty hurt him at all. In fact, he may have picked up a few votes. I got the feeling the students liked him for the most part.
It's an odd feeling being a Republican who likes the social democratic best.
Trump - ugh - Bible thumping in Iowa - repulsive. I suppose pandering works on some folks, but I would give Iowans more credit. He's such a shameless PUA. His hypnotism worked magic on Bush and Carson in the GOP debate, I'll give him that - it was freaky. I give him credit for taking these PUA tricks as far as he has. It just goes to show you how effective they are, even if juvenile. I would prefer a thoughtful statesman be president, however. I am doubtful Trump's PUA tricks will work as well on the international level.
-
Sanders goes to Christian university just to remind them he isn't one of them, that he disagrees on every issue and that his people killed Jesus. Yesterday Trump held up his tatered bible at a faith rally and said I'm one of you. Can you pick out the idiot here? Regarding Carson's cadence, autism comes to mind.
Bob,
This is why the right gets painted with the broad brush of racism (antisemitism). Because it is true.
. It appears you are doing the painting here. Goodwins law in action. My point was simply that Sanders had nothing to gain and in fact probably lost 10s of thousands of votes by appearing at liberty while Trump undoubtedly picked up thousands of Iowa votes by holding his bible up at a christian event. It is often inferred that Trump is intellectually challenged yet in this contrast he obviously made a much wiser choice than BS.
You are an anti Semite. Anti Semites are not worthy of debate.
-
I don't think I said Carson and Trump were the same on this issue.
You probably didn't. I was referring to 50-some posts back (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/msg809135/#msg809135) when I replied to (emphasis added): "Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage."
Unfortunately this isn't the first time Carson has been disingenuous about medical issues. For example, he came down hard on Planned Parenthood over their collection of fetal tissue donated for medical research. However Carson has personally done medical research with fetal tissue from aborted fetuses! He even claimed--in writing--that he had never done fetal tissue research. But he published a paper stating that he did just that!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-distances-himself-fetal-tissue-research
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/14/dr-ben-carson-fetal-tissue-research-dimwitted-slander/
Eh, that seems very tenuous. From what I could glean from those articles (and Carson's facebook statement) (https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/posts/513020902197714), if anything he might be subject to a charge of having his name on a paper when he contributed little to the work. That charge, however, would resonate only within the halls of academia and diminish quickly when reaching the general population.
If his statement "There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. ...My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients" is correct, this is much ado about nothing. If he is lying now, then it's a case of the coverup being worse than the act.
If there is anything new put forward on this (seems there hasn't been since the initial flurry in mid-August), we could revisit. Otherwise it seems a false accusation against Carson.
-
I don't think I said Carson and Trump were the same on this issue.
You probably didn't. I was referring to 50-some posts back (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/msg809135/#msg809135) when I replied to (emphasis added): "Carson, on the other hand lost any credibility as a doctor when he went along with trump on the immunization conspiracy garbage."
Unfortunately this isn't the first time Carson has been disingenuous about medical issues. For example, he came down hard on Planned Parenthood over their collection of fetal tissue donated for medical research. However Carson has personally done medical research with fetal tissue from aborted fetuses! He even claimed--in writing--that he had never done fetal tissue research. But he published a paper stating that he did just that!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carsons-tortured-defense-of-his-research-with-fetal-tissue/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-distances-himself-fetal-tissue-research
http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/14/dr-ben-carson-fetal-tissue-research-dimwitted-slander/
Eh, that seems very tenuous. From what I could glean from those articles (and Carson's facebook statement) (https://www.facebook.com/realbencarson/posts/513020902197714), if anything he might be subject to a charge of having his name on a paper when he contributed little to the work. That charge, however, would resonate only within the halls of academia and diminish quickly when reaching the general population.
If his statement "There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. ...My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients" is correct, this is much ado about nothing. If he is lying now, then it's a case of the coverup being worse than the act.
If there is anything new put forward on this (seems there hasn't been since the initial flurry in mid-August), we could revisit. Otherwise it seems a false accusation against Carson.
If you watched the debate then you would know that trump said that he was pro immunization in general but that immunizations given too quickly and too close together caused autism.
That is nonsense is precisely what Carson went along with.
I stand by my original quote and would suggest that you need to rewatch the debate.
-
If you watched the debate then you would know that trump said that he was pro immunization in general but that immunizations given too quickly and too close together caused autism.
That is nonsense is precisely what Carson went along with.
I stand by my original quote and would suggest that you need to rewatch the debate.
The relevant part of the debate transcript, from http://time.com/4037239/second-republican-debate-transcript-cnn/, is below. People can read and form their own conclusions.
TAPPER: …I’m turning to another — I’m turning to another issue right now. Senator Cruz. Well, I think we’ve heard from several this evening.
A backlash against vaccines was blamed for a measles outbreak here in California. Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines, childhood vaccines, to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes.
You’re a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?
CARSON: Well, let me put it this way, there has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism.
This was something that was spread widely 15 or 20 years ago, and it has not been adequately, you know, revealed to the public what’s actually going on. Vaccines are very important. Certain ones. The ones that would prevent death or crippling.
There are others, there are a multitude of vaccines which probably don’t fit in that category, and there should be some discretion in those cases. But, you know, a lot of this is — is — is pushed by big government.
And I think that’s one of the things that people so vehemently want to get rid of, big government. You know, we have 4.1 million federal employees. Six hundred and fifty federal agencies and department (sic).
That’s why they have to take so much of our taxes. TAPPER: Should he stop saying it? Should he stop saying that vaccines cause autism?
CARSON: Well, you know, I’ve just explained it to him. He can read about it if he wants to. I think he’s an intelligent man and will make the correct decision after getting the real facts.
TAPPER: Mr. Trump, as president, you would…
TRUMP: Well, I — I — I’d like to respond.
TAPPER: I’m going right to you.
TRUMP: I’d like to respond.
TAPPER: Mr. Trump, as president, you would be in charge of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, both of which say you are wrong. How would you handle this as president?
TRUMP: Autism has become an epidemic. Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.
I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Because you take a baby in — and I’ve seen it — and I’ve seen it, and I had my children taken care of over a long period of time, over a two or three year period of time.
Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — I mean, it looks just like it’s meant for a horse, not for a child, and we’ve had so many instances, people that work for me.
Just the other day, two years old, two and a half years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.
I only say it’s not — I’m in favor of vaccines, do them over a longer period of time, same amount.
TAPPER: Thank you.
TRUMP: But just in — in little sections.
TAPPER: Dr. — Dr. Carson?
TRUMP: I think — and I think you’re going to have — I think you’re going to see a big impact on autism.
TAPPER: Dr. Carson, you just heard his medical take.
(LAUGHTER)
CARSON: He’s an OK doctor.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
CARSON: But, you know, the fact of the matter is, we have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism associated with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.
And a lot of pediatricians now recognize that, and, I think, are cutting down on the number and the proximity in which those are done, and I think that’s appropriate.
TRUMP: And that’s all I’m saying, Jake. That’s all I’m saying.
TAPPER: Dr. Paul? Dr. Paul, I’d like to bring you in.
PAUL: A second opinion?
(LAUGHTER)
One of the greatest — one of the greatest medical discoveries of all times was — were the vaccines, particularly for smallpox. And if you want to read a story, it’s called The Speckled Monster, it’s an amazing story, it was all done voluntary.
But people came in by the droves. George Washington wouldn’t let his wife visit until she got vaccinated. So I’m all for vaccines. But I’m also for freedom.
I’m also a little concerned about how they’re bunched up. My kids had all of their vaccines, and even if the science doesn’t say bunching them up is a problem, I ought to have the right to spread out my vaccines out a little bit at the very least.
-
Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/)
-
Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/)
Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.
-
Koch's really have their pulse on the heartbeat of America, don't they?
-
Koch's really have their pulse on the heartbeat of America, don't they?
Apparently (humor)
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kochs-demand-walker-return-nine-hundred-million-dollars?intcid=mod-latest (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kochs-demand-walker-return-nine-hundred-million-dollars?intcid=mod-latest)
-
Koch's really have their pulse on the heartbeat of America, don't they?
Apparently (humor)
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kochs-demand-walker-return-nine-hundred-million-dollars?intcid=mod-latest (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kochs-demand-walker-return-nine-hundred-million-dollars?intcid=mod-latest)
I'm proud to have shared an idea with Borowitz. He's hilarious.
-
Borowitz takes a swipe at Carson as well...
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-shattering-stereotype-about-brain-surgeons-being-smart (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-shattering-stereotype-about-brain-surgeons-being-smart)
-
Borowitz takes a swipe at Carson as well...
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-shattering-stereotype-about-brain-surgeons-being-smart (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/ben-carson-shattering-stereotype-about-brain-surgeons-being-smart)
As long as we're talking about humor and presidential candidates, I figured I would slip this in here: Bad Lip-Reading Republican Debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU). Fair warning, Ben Carson's lip-reading had me stifling guffaws in my cubicle :)
-
Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/)
Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.
He had good poll numbers the first quarter of 2015 and again in July. While he would have made a solid president, I'm glad he can redirect his full attention to continue making Wisconsin a great place to live, reducing property taxes, etc.
Well, he did have Koch's backing, and he was a front runner so you're not entirely inaccurate.
But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott
It's as if he and Sam Brownback are trying to put the final nails in the coffin of the supply side economics myth. Trickle down doesn't work, and it never did.
-
It's as if he and Sam Brownback are trying to put the final nails in the coffin of the supply side economics myth. Trickle down doesn't work, and it never did.
Ah, but one must have faith! Verily, I tell you, Brownback and Walker have been to the grave and lo it was empty. One just needs to be baptized in the waters of cutting taxes, proclaim Reagan as Lord and Savior, and your economy will be saved!
-
Trickle down doesn't work, and it never did.
Personally, I never understood why the answer to "how do we give more money to poor people" was supposed to be "we should give more money to rich people." That logic seemed flawed from the start, but we gave it a good 30 year trial run just to make sure.
If they just wanted to give money to rich people, that's fine but they should just say so. It's the deceptive window dressing behind the whole thing that most bothered me. Don't pretend you're trying to help the poor by giving tax breaks to the rich, just admit you're trying to help the rich because you think they're more important. That's an easier argument to defend, but instead they felt they had to come up with this convoluted cover story about trickle-down. Were they just worried about votes? Maybe things were more democratic back then, but these days you don't need public opinion on your side as long as you have enough money, and the surest way to get lots of money is to give a bunch of money to rich people who don't need it, and can give it back to your campaign.
-
Sol, it's not a logic exercise.
It's a political game.
The mainstream Republican Party has really been about one thing since 1980. Regressive taxation. That is the redistribution of wealth from down to up.
That's not a winning formula for electoral success.
So what to do?
1. Harness the resentments of racists and social conservatives.
2. Pretend that tax breaks for the rich are not really for the rich.
On a pocketbook level republican economics makes sense for the 1% (like me) and really for no one else.
This is why conservatives are uniformly anti campaign finance reform, and anti voter turnout.
-
Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/)
Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.
He had good poll numbers the first quarter of 2015 and again in July. While he would have made a solid president, I'm glad he can redirect his full attention to continue making Wisconsin a great place to live, reducing property taxes, etc.
Well, he did have Koch's backing, and he was a front runner so you're not entirely inaccurate.
But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott
I call BS on your 'epic failure.' Is that an article or just a rehashing of DNC talking points? So basically because Walker didn't cave to anti-business practices (like raising min wage) he made the state worse? Fascinating logic that may play well on the left coast, but not here.
But sadly Gov. Walker is out of the race. But take heart! There are still plenty of republicans in the race for mustashians to complain about!
How about that Carly Fiorina? She's now 2nd behind Trump. Didn't know much about her before, but I'm impressed by her debate performance and follow-up interviews. Wouldn't mind seeing her in the White House.
First, the states that increased minimum wage saw faster job growth than those who did not increase it. Raising the minimum wage is not anti-business especially when it is not indexed to inflation. Second he has attempted to destroy Wisconsin's environment: "In his 2015–17 budget, released in February, he proposed eliminating a third of the DNR’s 58 scientist positions and 60 percent of its 18 environmental educator positions. (The cuts were approved by the state legislature’s budget committee in May, and the budget is currently making its way through the legislature.) Walker also attempted to convert the citizen board that sets policy for the DNR to a purely advisory body and proposed a 13-year freeze on the state’s popular land conservation fund—both changes that lawmakers rejected in the face of intense public objections." and "One of the biggest environmental controversies to mark Walker’s tenure came in 2013, when he signed a law paving the way for Gogebic Taconite, a mining company later revealed to be a major political donor, to build a 6.5-kilometer-long open-pit mine in the Penokee Hills region in the Lake Superior watershed. Citing a 2011 study funded by Gogebic, Walker argued the mine would bring thousands of jobs to the struggling region. Gogebic helped write the new law, which allows companies to dump mine waste into nearby wetlands, streams and lakes; doubles the area around a mine that a company can pollute; allows the DNR to exempt any company from any part of the law; and strips citizens of the right to sue mining companies for illegal environmental damage." This included trying to silence those who disagreed with him.
There is no redeeming value in that Governor, and he has damaged his state in so many ways it would take me hours to post and cite each of them. Pointing that out is not cheap shot.
-
Walker is out. I can't say I'm sorry to see him go.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/)
Was he ever really in? He's been polling at Patakish numbers all along.
He had good poll numbers the first quarter of 2015 and again in July. While he would have made a solid president, I'm glad he can redirect his full attention to continue making Wisconsin a great place to live, reducing property taxes, etc.
Well, he did have Koch's backing, and he was a front runner so you're not entirely inaccurate.
But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott
I call BS on your 'epic failure.' Is that an article or just a rehashing of DNC talking points? So basically because Walker didn't cave to anti-business practices (like raising min wage) he made the state worse? Fascinating logic that may play well on the left coast, but not here.
But sadly Gov. Walker is out of the race. But take heart! There are still plenty of republicans in the race for mustashians to complain about!
How about that Carly Fiorina? She's now 2nd behind Trump. Didn't know much about her before, but I'm impressed by her debate performance and follow-up interviews. Wouldn't mind seeing her in the White House.
If cutting jobs, running a profitable company into the ground and failing CEO golden parachutes are your things, then she just might be the one for you. Oh and lying. She's very good at that that too.
Ruining a Fortune 500 company is not as big of an accomplishment as ruining a Whole states economy, of course, but you can't have it all.
-
But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott
Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business? Emphasis added:
In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...
I get that the part that continues ...and median household income in Wisconsin is thousands of dollars less...
is at least consistent to a first approximation with lower pay, but the part above...?
-
But when it comes to making Wisconsin a great place to live, he did cut taxes, but the economy has been an epic failure....
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/247539-a-closer-look-at-wisconsins-economy-under-gov-scott
Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business? Emphasis added:
In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...
I get that the part that continues ...and median household income in Wisconsin is thousands of dollars less...
is at least consistent to a first approximation with lower pay, but the part above...?
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/12/16/forbes-names-walkers-wisconsin-worst-states-business.html
"In fact, economists Sylvia Allegretto and Gordon Lafer of the University of California, Berkeley and University of Oregon, respectively, show that since Oklahoma’s law passed in 2001, manufacturing employment and business relocations to the state actually reversed their “pre-right-to-work” increases and began to fall—and this at a time when Oklahoma’s extractive industry economies were booming. To the contrary, these researchers show that right-to-work laws have failed to increase employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted them."
-
Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business? Emphasis added:
In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/12/16/forbes-names-walkers-wisconsin-worst-states-business.html
In the Forbes article that is behind the politicususa article, one findsBusiness costs incorporate Moody’s Analytics cost of doing business index which includes labor, energy and taxes. Moody’s weighs labor costs the most heavily in its index.
Not arguing whether the net result of any particular policy is good or bad - just not believing that "lower wages = higher business cost". If it was just a typo, no big deal. Otherwise...?
-
Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business? Emphasis added:
In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...
http://www.politicususa.com/2012/12/16/forbes-names-walkers-wisconsin-worst-states-business.html
In the Forbes article that is behind the politicususa article, one findsBusiness costs incorporate Moody’s Analytics cost of doing business index which includes labor, energy and taxes. Moody’s weighs labor costs the most heavily in its index.
Not arguing whether the net result of any particular policy is good or bad - just not believing that "lower wages = higher business cost". If it was just a typo, no big deal. Otherwise...?
I read that the bolded 3 policies leads to the bolded conclusion: the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher. That is NOT distributive - you can't say that each of the three components therefore leads to high costs of doing business. But the sum of the three does. Make sense?
-
Is there a typo (or Freudian slip) in that article, or am I just missing something about the relationship between pay and the cost of doing business? Emphasis added:
In Wisconsin, Walker refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation, rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid, and attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies. As a result, the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher than the national average...
I read that the bolded 3 policies leads to the bolded conclusion: the cost of doing business in Wisconsin is higher. That is NOT distributive - you can't say that each of the three components therefore leads to high costs of doing business. But the sum of the three does. Make sense?
It's certainly possible to combine things that singly cause one behavior but together cause another, so I'm open to the possibility. Let's look at each in turn
1) "refuses to raise the minimum wage and equal pay legislation" - the usual suggestion is this leads to lower wages, which cost businesses less
2) "rejected federal funds to expand Medicaid" - no idea of the conventional wisdom about how this would affect business costs.
3) "attacked Wisconsin workers with right to work legislation and anti-collective bargaining policies" - the usual suggestion is this leads to lower wages, which cost businesses less
Still don't see how combining #1, #2, and #3 goes from costing less individually (or neutral for #2?) to more collectively, so maybe someone can teach....
-
MDM You're right.
They all (aside from the refusing of Medicaid expansion, which was just dumb ideology) probably lead to lower labor costs which are more than offset by decreased spending, consumption, and growth.
In other words, lower costs and much lower profits and jobs.
-
Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.
-
Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.
So you would reject discussing the current #3 and current #1 in polls as impossible?
-
Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.
So you would reject discussing the current #3 and current #1 in polls as impossible?
No, I'm okay discussing that they are impossible, assuming you are referring to the names you bolded, Trump and Fiorina.
However I can't figure out what you are using to decide Fiorina as #3, she is most recently #2 in the most current poll, and if you combine the polls she's #6
-
LOL arguing on who's riding shotgun in the clown car.
-
Lets talk about potential presidential candidates instead of people that have no chance. So lets stop talking about Walker, Fiorina and Trump.
So you would reject discussing the current #3 and current #1 in polls as impossible?
No, I'm okay discussing that they are impossible,
Why are they impossible?
-
LOL arguing on who's riding shotgun in the clown car.
Keep laughing, Doc. There is a better than even chance that one of those clowns riding in that car right now is going to be the next POTUS.
I don't think that's funny at all.
-
I agree that they're clowns, and as it stands it seems the most likely president is Biden, but we'll see, too far away to know yet.
The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does. Fiorina was at best a mediocre CEO, and that's being very nice. Ben Carson is a Neurosurgeon so he's super smart on all subjects right? WRONG, he has just barely started learning about a lot of the problems he could potentially face.
-
The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.
This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney. Is this a serious claim? Or just wishful thinking? Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems. Even they consider him their high mark.
This is about as serious a claim as to say the Dems wouldn't nominate Biden because of all the stupid crap he says!
-
The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.
This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney. Is this a serious claim? Or just wishful thinking? Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems. Even they consider him their high mark.
This is about as serious a claim as to say the Dems wouldn't nominate Biden because of all the stupid crap he says!
Reagan was a great president and he didn't get alzheimer's until the end of his 2nd term. I'd prefer W Bush, McCain & Romney over Trump every time.
-
Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13, JB 10, CF 4.
5 day rolling poll, end date sep 18th. 500 sample size. http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false
Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.
Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.
-
Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13, JB 10, CF 4.
5 day rolling poll, end date sep 18th. 500 sample size. http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false
Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.
Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.
... except Sanders.
I don't know if it is more concerning to have a candidate owned by Wall Street or owned by Trump.
-
Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13, JB 10, CF 4.
5 day rolling poll, end date sep 18th. 500 sample size. http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false
Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.
Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.
Do you mean only non Wall Street owned GOP candidate? Because I think Socialist Sanders is also non Wall Street owned
-
The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.
This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney. Is this a serious claim? Or just wishful thinking? Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems. Even they consider him their high mark.
Your examples actually argue against your point. Unlike Trump, Fiorina and Carson, everyone you mentioned above (including the forgetful ex B-list movie star) were establishment candidates, with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders. Now, maybe this time really IS different, but the safe bet is that none of the current three front runners will be able to leverage their current position in the polls to get enough convention delegates to be nominated.
-
with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders.
Neither party has ever nominated a complete political novice for president, unless that novice recently defeated the axis powers as the supreme allied commander. Trump would be an unprecedented gamble.
People had a complete fit about how Palin was grossly unqualified to be VP, and she was an actual governor of an actual state who had actually been elected before. Trump hasn't so much as sat on a city council board before.
The republicans have a deep field of qualified candidates, people with real governing experience. I'll be shocked if they actually get duped into nominating a total rookie with zero qualifications or relevant experience.
If they do, they'll lose badly in the general election when his complete lack of experience or practical ideas becomes evident. If they don't, I hope he runs a third party campaign and splits the conservative vote, which also leads to a loss. The only way the republicans can possibly retake the white house is if Trump decides to quietly go away, and throws his support to someone who might actually be qualified for the job. That might have been his plan along, to sell his support to the highest bidder, but I doubt it.
Establishment candidates know this. They believe in the party ideals and would uniformly step aside in order to secure the white house for the party. Trump doesn't seem to care for the party or the ideals, and may gladly sacrifice both in his ego-driven pursuit of power. That puts the GOP in a tough spot, trying to decide between vainly trying to win by abandoning their ideals, or preserving those ideals as they go down in valiant flames.
-
The Republicans wouldn't nominate Trump, they would be blamed for all the stupid crap he does.
This is the same party that nominated GWB, McCain and Romney. Is this a serious claim? Or just wishful thinking? Literally the best nominee the Repubs have put up in my lifetime was an actor with serious memory recall problems. Even they consider him their high mark.
Your examples actually argue against your point. Unlike Trump, Fiorina and Carson, everyone you mentioned above (including the forgetful ex B-list movie star) were establishment candidates, with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders. Now, maybe this time really IS different, but the safe bet is that none of the current three front runners will be able to leverage their current position in the polls to get enough convention delegates to be nominated.
It will be very difficult, as Bush/pubs/Rove/RNC changed their nominating rules when no one was looking in 14. Basically they set it up so that Bush needed only 20% of the voters in primary states to win. It is complicated but a person needs to carry at least 8 states before their name can be entered at the convention for consideration. The Koch brothers are actively supporting numerous candidates at Rove's command in order to splinter the vote. They set the process so that momentum has less impact and big money candidates (Bush the anointed) can slog through the process.
Of course that was all before Trump. Trump may take only half of the initial states and thus be in for a fight till the end with the Bush folks. Other candidates will drop as the process unwinds in the primaries and they will all make Walkeresq speeches supporting Bush. As it becomes more and more likely Trump will not only win the Pub nomination but that he is widely appealing to disenfranchised minority voters, unions and women, the wall street banker folks will simply switch their support to Biden while quietly working against Trump.
You see they don't really care if it is a Dem or a Pub who wins as long as the policy of leaving the working class with a huge deficit while they loot the treasury continues. They do care if Trump wins because he actually says he will tax hedge funds, end offshore tax avoidance and offshoring of jobs, while increasing the cost of US labor. (i.e. he is a main street people's candidate)
Did I mention that Trump is meeting with leaders of the South Carolina Black Business Chamber and Trump also will speak at an event in Columbia, the state capital, hosted by South Carolina's Republican U.S. Senator Tim Scott. Tim happens to be a Black Republican Senator and carries a lot of weight with that demographic in SC. "of the 15 Republican presidential candidates, Trump did best among black Republicans and independents in a Reuters poll."
Trump, in his genius, blew off the Republican sponsored event last week and chose to center himself as the sole Republican courting the black Repulican vote in SC this week. The Pubs just can't figure it out. They gave him tons of media for not attending an event that received not media coverage.
Trump polls better than other Republicans with Hispanic/latinos. Most people have it in their mind that Hispanic is a race (it is an ethnic designation) term. Latinos and Hispanics are actually a very diverse group that includes many races and countries of origin. And yep, you didn't guess it, but many, if not a majority, of legal Latino immigrants are opposed to illegal aliens. Go figure -- they hate crime too and jumped through the difficult proper hoops.
In the post racial USA it appears that the democrats racial polarization may come back and bite them. They could end up losing a significant portion of the black vote.
It is the economy stupid.
-
with prior elected experience and had broad support from party insiders.
Neither party has ever nominated a complete political novice for president, unless that novice recently defeated the axis powers as the supreme allied commander. Trump would be an unprecedented gamble.
People had a complete fit about how Palin was grossly unqualified to be VP, and she was an actual governor of an actual state who had actually been elected before. Trump hasn't so much as sat on a city council board before.
The republicans have a deep field of qualified candidates, people with real governing experience. I'll be shocked if they actually get duped into nominating a total rookie with zero qualifications or relevant experience.
If they do, they'll lose badly in the general election when his complete lack of experience or practical ideas becomes evident. If they don't, I hope he runs a third party campaign and splits the conservative vote, which also leads to a loss. The only way the republicans can possibly retake the white house is if Trump decides to quietly go away, and throws his support to someone who might actually be qualified for the job. That might have been his plan along, to sell his support to the highest bidder, but I doubt it.
Establishment candidates know this. They believe in the party ideals and would uniformly step aside in order to secure the white house for the party. Trump doesn't seem to care for the party or the ideals, and may gladly sacrifice both in his ego-driven pursuit of power. That puts the GOP in a tough spot, trying to decide between vainly trying to win by abandoning their ideals, or preserving those ideals as they go down in valiant flames.
The Republicans abandoned their supposed ideals of small/limited Government and fiscal conservancy in 2000 as I recall. God bless Newt Gingrich! They have controlled the purse strings for a good many of the last 15 years --- increased government spending, increased debt.
Sol, you can keep being fooled that there are two parties with significant differences but in the end they all voted for the trade agreements, ignored illegal immigration, screwed the budget saddled us with an insurance company owned health system and exported jobs as fast as possible.
-
Other candidates will drop as the process unwinds in the primaries and they will all make Walkeresq speeches supporting Bush.
I don't think Walker wants to support Bush, either; but I can concede he may have no choice for political reasons.
-
Bob,I think you're delusional. Women and minorities are going to support Trump? Crossover democrats are going to pick him over Clinton? Your fantasy doesn't even make sense, nevermind that it's not supported by any current polling.
Don't get me wrong, I hope he runs because I think the general election would be a landslide democratic victory that would coattail some dems into congress too. I'm just struggling to figure out where you're getting these ideas from, or how you think he can possibly win.
in the end they all voted for the trade agreements, ignored illegal immigration, screwed the budget saddled us with an insurance company owned health system and exported jobs as fast as possible.
I feel compelled to point out that Sanders and even Clinton are keen to fix some of these problems too. These issues are not going to siphon off votes.
Immigration reform has been blocked by the republicans for years, basically because the various interests in the party couldn't agree on how to do it. A border wall is not reform. I think everyone in DC accepts that we're eventually going to grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants, because there's really no alternative, but we'll probably also simultaneously implement new immigration controls as a trade off. Trump is arguing for the exact opposite, deporting current immigrants but then opening the border, which seems like a lot of expense to get back to where we currently are.
The ACA definitely has some problems, but calling it "insurance company owned" seems like deliberate amnesia about what we had before, which was even worse. The ACA was a step in the right direction, though almost any change would have been an improvement over the old system. And it was democrats who gave is that improvement, and Trump's party that opposed it, so I don't see how that issue is going to help him with any voters other than the ones who want to go back to the fully disastrous system we had before.
-
Bob,I think you're delusional. Women and minorities are going to support Trump? Crossover democrats are going to pick him over Clinton? Your fantasy doesn't even make sense, nevermind that it's not supported by any current polling.
+1
Let's examine a few of Bob's claims:
Trump polls better than other Republicans with Hispanic/latinos.
Reality: Trump polls dead last of Republican candidates with Hispanic voters:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/15/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-donald-trump-highest-hispanics-an/
In the post racial USA it appears that the democrats racial polarization may come back and bite them. They could end up losing a significant portion of the black vote.
Trump currently polls at 2-3% of the black vote depending on the Democratic candidate. This would be the second-lowest support of all time. If he ran as a third-party candidate, his support jumps to a whopping 5% of black voters:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-african-american-polls/
-
Reuter poll shows Trump 36%, BC 13, JB 10, CF 4.
5 day rolling poll, end date sep 18th. 500 sample size. http://polling.reuters.com/#!response/TR130/type/smallest/filters/PARTY_ID_:2/dates/20150808-20150918/collapsed/false
Trump continues upward momentum according to Reuters.
Please remember that Trump is the only non Wall Street owned candidate.
Do you mean only non Wall Street owned GOP candidate? Because I think Socialist Sanders is also non Wall Street owned
Why is it always so necessary to pull down the level of conversation to a superficial, juvenile level by calling a perfectly legitimate candidate by some sort of reductive label, instead of using his/her actual name?
-
European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.
But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.
The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....
So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."
-
European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.
But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.
The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....
So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."
I agree. But my irritation isn't even really about that particular label. I just… ugh, it's just so tiresome when people feel so compelled to ALWAYS call certain politicians by some derogatory nickname: "Obummer", "Billary," etc. And I hate it when people on the left do it, too. It's reductive, it's meant to derail actual, substantive conversation, and it's always meant as a slur. It's just so useless.
-
European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.
But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.
The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....
So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."
I agree. But my irritation isn't even really about that particular label. I just… ugh, it's just so tiresome when people feel so compelled to ALWAYS call certain politicians by some derogatory nickname: "Obummer", "Billary," etc. And I hate it when people on the left do it, too. It's reductive, it's meant to derail actual, substantive comments, and it's always meant as a slur. It's just so useless and actually counterproductive to real conversation.
-
European style socialism is a bad word to the righties.
But there's no reason to think of socialism as a libel.
The conservative policies are anti Medicare, anti social security, anti minimum wage, and anti food stamp....
So by their absurd labels most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."
I agree. But my irritation isn't even really about that particular label. I just… ugh, it's just so tiresome when people feel so compelled to ALWAYS call certain politicians by some derogatory nickname: "Obummer", "Billary," etc. And I hate it when people on the left do it, too. It's reductive, it's meant to derail actual, substantive conversation, and it's always meant as a slur. It's just so useless.
You're correct of course.
-
most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."
This is the reason why Sanders is doing so well in the few places he had campaigned, I think. Everyone who actually listens to his platform, where he supports Medicare and social security and minimum wage increases and higher corporate tax rates to fund these programs, seems shocked to find a candidate who appears to stand for working class Americans instead of big businesses. That's virtually unheard of, from either party.
Ultimately, I think our democracy still exists primarily to serve corporate interests and candidates like Sanders who want to represent people rather than corporations will probably get buried by Citizen's United style donations. That doesn't change the fact that most America's like what he has to say, even if they'll never be able to actually elect him for it.
-
most Americans are pro-socialism. The right is the outlier not "socialist sanders."
This is the reason why Sanders is doing so well in the few places he had campaigned, I think. Everyone who actually listens to his platform, where he supports Medicare and social security and minimum wage increases and higher corporate tax rates to fund these programs, seems shocked to find a candidate who appears to stand for working class Americans instead of big businesses. That's virtually unheard of, from either party.
Ultimately, I think our democracy still exists primarily to serve corporate interests and candidates like Sanders who want to represent people rather than corporations will probably get buried by Citizen's United style donations. That doesn't change the fact that most America's like what he has to say, even if they'll never be able to actually elect him for it.
Sanders is pretty much the ideal candidate as far as I'm concerned. His political values are almost identical to mine. And he is wonderfully authentic.
But he has other problems electorally aside from corporate money. He excites the liberal base of the party, but there is little evidence that he excites nonwhite, and non-liberal democrats. I think it's likely that he would not excite swing voters in the general election very much either.
I'm also not sure that I agree with "taxing corporations more." My feeling is that we should tax people progressively and simply, and we should tax each dollar The same. That way if you earn a dollar from labor, or from capital gains, or from a corporate distribution, or from carried interest it makes no difference.
Despite the political optics, I would be actually be fine with a 0% corporate income tax, as long as all of the money that flowed out of the corporation was taxed progressively and fairly.
-
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/carly-fiorina-ceo-jeffrey-sonnenfeld-2016-213163
-
No one seemed to have a problem with Jeb Bush being called Jeb!. I don't see a problem calling him Socialist Sanders, the context in which I called him that was me saying that he wasn't owned by Wall Street, a complement to the man. I personally would prefer almost any of the current contendors to be president rather than Socialist Sanders, if he gets his way one of two things will happen.
1. We will pay a much higher tax rate.
2. We will take on MUCH more debt than necessary
If he makes public Colleges free, then everyone has to pay for it. Those who didn’t go to college, those who went to a cheap college, or those who started at a cheap college, will be paying for people to go to expensive public colleges. More people will go to college, which will be a good thing a lot of the time. But the dropout rate from college will increase and the salary gap between college graduates and people that didn’t go to college will decrease. I don’t think the price of college stops the hard workers that really want to go to college from being able to go. Maybe it stops them from being lawyers, good riddens.
Almost everything Sanders wants to do will raise taxes, the dream of the US will change, rather being the unique place where people that work hard can go to strive ahead and pay less in taxes(thus making them retire very fast), it will turn into (insert one of the very many first world socialist countries). Sanders could just move to Canada and voila, he has everything he wants.
Rather than have the government pay for everything and then tax individuals, I assume you just let the individuals have the freedom to decide how to pay for things themselves. I don’t mind paying to go to a community college for 2 years and then paying to go to a University for 2 years, it’s not nearly as expensive as people make it seem and saying that you have to take on hundreds of thousands in debt to get a bachelor’s degree is nonsense. I did it without taking on any debt, without any help from my parents.
At the very least, I think people should be able to opt out of paying taxes for X, and then not using the governments help with X.
-
We all pay taxes for things we don't use. Hasn't this one already been covered?
-
If your chief concern is debt, then all evidence suggests that you should not vote republican for president and you should vote democratic.
And if your primary concern is taxes then if you are not in the top 1%, you there's not much of a difference between the 2 parties. (If you are in top income tax bracket (like me) and you vote your pocketbook, then republicans are the way to go.)
-
If your chief concern is debt, then all evidence suggests that you should not vote republican for president and you should vote democratic.
And if your primary concern is taxes then if you are not in the top 1%, you there's not much of a difference between the 2 parties. (If you are in top income tax bracket (like me) and you vote your pocketbook, then republicans are the way to go.)
You wanna know the biggest increase in debt and taxes during a presidency? FDR BY FAR, WAY MORE THAN ALL OTHER REPUBLICANS COMBINED. Therefore your statement is false.
-
Hmm, I wonder what was going on during those years that could have possibly caused that!?!?!
-
In nominal terms that's false. GW Bush added far more debt than FDR. As did Reagan, and Poppy bush.
But if we're talking in terms of debt as percentage of GDP, I'll take your point as long as you admit the truth that Obama and Clinton increased debt by far less than both bushes and the worst debtor president of the modern age: Reagan.
So if we're talking about the presidents of our lifetimes republicans ALWAYS increase the debt more than Dems.
Until that law changes you'd be an idiot to vote republican for president if you are a deficit hawk.
-
Wow. Knock me off my DIY outdoor sectional with the Target cushions. Thought I would be an outlier, but it looks like lots of Mustachians are "Feelin' the Bern." Love it.
-
In nominal terms that's false. GW Bush added far more debt than FDR. As did Reagan, and Poppy bush.
But if we're talking in terms of debt as percentage of GDP, I'll take your point as long as you admit the truth that Obama and Clinton increased debt by far less than both bushes and the worst debtor president of the modern age: Reagan.
So if we're talking about the presidents of our lifetimes republicans ALWAYS increase the debt more than Dems.
Until that law changes you'd be an idiot to vote republican for president if you are a deficit hawk.
What law? I have no idea what your speaking of. Do you mean random trend that might mean something? As far as "who to vote for if you are a deficit hawk" the answer would clearly be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, with Bernie Sanders being VERY low on that list.
Also, Clintons balanced budget was due mostly to republicans.
Also in Obamas time, Since early 2009 the economy has been doing great every year after the crash, yet he's still increasing debt.
W Bush didn't make the debt more than 10 times the size it was when he started like FDR. He also didn't add tons of entitlements we would have to pay forever.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
Fact, while FDR was in office, the National debt increased to more than 10x of what it was before he took office.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
Notice how Jeremy is not intellectually honest enough to Define the debt as nominal debt or debt as a proportion of GDP.
This sophistry is a favorite tactic for those who try to argue what is untrue.
Here is a fair piece on debt by presidents. The last chart shows debt as a proportion of GDP. Look at how well the Reagan Bush supply side experiment works at decreasing deficit levels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
-
...
Here is a fair piece on debt by presidents. ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
+1
About to post that link but it's here already. Plenty of grist for whatever political flavor one wishes to mill.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
Translation: source is Americans for tax reform, newsmax, and drudge.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
Notice how Jeremy is not intellectually honest enough to Define the debt as nominal debt or debt as a proportion of GDP.
This sophistry is a favorite tactic for those who try to argue what is untrue.
Here is a fair piece on debt by presidents. The last chart shows debt as a proportion of GDP. Look at how well the Reagan Bush supply side experiment works at decreasing deficit levels.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/07/the-story-behind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/
Okay, compare those charts to a similar one from when FDR was in office and you won't even notice the republicans.
-
Why would I look that up? It's "common knowledge."
-
Why would I look that up? It's "common knowledge."
I don't care if you look it up, but FDR raised both taxes and debt, by far more than any other republican and their is no disputing it.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
Sources. LOL.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.
It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.
The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.
So...
Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.
-
Here's some neutral data on debt (note the numbers do not appear to be inflation adjusted).
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm)
Most of the big historical inflection points align with the World Wars and economic downturns. These outlier events (where we didn't bring them on ourselves, like with Iraq) are somewhat divorced from the ideology of the individual parties, so arguing based on those administrations is a bit inaccurate.
While there has been some grumbling about it, I don't see a huge groundswell of opposition to the details of the major policies driving up federal debt from the side of the deficit hawks, but much wrangling about small pieces of the pie in discretionary programs.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.
It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.
The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.
So...
Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.
http://www.academia.edu/285486/On_common_knowledge_and_ad_populum_Acceptance_as_grounds_for_acceptability
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.
It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.
The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.
So...
Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.
Whatever, since you keep bringing it up, i'll rephrase by saying it makes you seem stupid to ask multiple times for reliable sources on what the national debt is now and between presidents, as those are VERY easy to find numbers that aren't disputed.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.
It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.
The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.
So...
Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.
Whatever, since you keep bringing it up, i'll rephrase by saying it makes you seem stupid to ask multiple times for reliable sources on what the national debt is now and between presidents, as those are VERY easy to find numbers that aren't disputed.
http://www.mcckc.edu/longview/socsci/psyc/westra/CommonSense/cs4.html
It doesn't make me "look stupid" in the sense that you keep telling everyone that it is "very easy" to find these sources, and it is "common knowledge" but somehow, you can't take the negligible time to actually locate them.
Fallacy.
-
First come the facts, then come the desperate rationalizations.
Fact, Obama increased the debt more in 6 years than W Bush did in 8.
I would sure as hell like to see a *reliable* source for this.
W Bush increased it from 5.8 trillion to 11.65 trillion
Obama has raised it to 18.4 trillion so far
11.65-5.8=5.85
18.4-11.65=6.75
6.75>5.85
So, I would like to see a reliable source. Like, a source.
I'm not saying you are wrong. I would like to see a reputable source cited. Not you typing out numbers.
It is common knowledge that isn't disputed by either party, if you don't believe me I'll let you look it up yourself and choose your own source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge
Posting a wikipedia link about "common knowledge" after asking me for a reputable source for the national debt multiple times? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Jeremy: "Common knowledge" is a logical fallacy.
It is not about Wikipedia. I can give you other sources pointing out that your "logic" is a fallacy.
The point is, citing "common knowledge" is, pure and simple, BS.
So...
Present actual sources for your assertions. Or else, admit that your assertions are groundless.
Whatever, since you keep bringing it up, i'll rephrase by saying it makes you seem stupid to ask multiple times for reliable sources on what the national debt is now and between presidents, as those are VERY easy to find numbers that aren't disputed.
http://www.mcckc.edu/longview/socsci/psyc/westra/CommonSense/cs4.html
It doesn't make me "look stupid" in the sense that you keep telling everyone that it is "very easy" to find these sources, and it is "common knowledge" but somehow, you can't take the negligible time to actually locate them.
Fallacy.
This will be my last reply to you as you are wasting my time.
Here is what the national debt is,
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
Here are 5 (easily found by a simple google search) websites that show what the national debt was between Bush and Obama. I could find more but I don't feel like it.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm
http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/index.html
http://www.savingsbonds.gov/NP/debt/current
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/706025967449751-federal-debt-7t-under-obama
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/75-trillion-debt-added-under-obama_824147.html#!
-
Arguing about the Federal debt and deficits without reference to economic conditions during the administrations in question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces that drive Federal budget dynamics. Obama and FDR were both presidents during severe economic downturns. The idea that the Federal budget deficit was the most significant problem during these periods is laughable.
-
Arguing about the Federal debt and deficits without reference to economic conditions during the administrations in question demonstrates a lack of understanding of the forces that drive Federal budget dynamics. Obama and FDR were both presidents during severe economic downturns. The idea that the Federal budget deficit was the most significant problem during these periods is laughable.
I don't believe anyone has said the federal budget deficit was the most significant problem during these periods. That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.
-
"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt. That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.
-
"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt. That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.
We owe more money to social security than we owe any country.
-
Social security has a surplus.
-
Social security has a surplus.
It would have a surplus assuming we didn't take money out of it, but we did.
-
Let's take you at your word for the sake of argument. By any measure social security has contributed exactly nothing to our national debt.
Which makes this statement of yours laughably false:
That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.
-
Let's take you at your word for the sake of argument. By any measure social security has contributed exactly nothing to our national debt.
Which makes this statement of yours laughably false:
That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/05/news/economy/national_debt_spending/
-
"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt.
If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct. Things would look much worse if the government had to do so.
That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.
If you are talking about the cumulative differences between annual spending and tax revenue, and the gross outstanding federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to pay for those shortfalls, however, entitlements have been and are huge contributors to the national debt.
For many numbers, see
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_central.php#agency
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy16rs12012n_1li1n
For generic observations, see
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/national-debt-guide/faqs/how-did-debt-get-so-big/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/
-
"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt.
If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct. Things would look much worse if the government had to do so.
That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.
If you are talking about the cumulative differences between annual spending and tax revenue, and the gross outstanding federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to pay for those shortfalls, however, entitlements have been and are huge contributors to the national debt.
For many numbers, see
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_central.php#agency
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy16rs12012n_1li1n
For generic observations, see
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/national-debt-guide/faqs/how-did-debt-get-so-big/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/
You are conflating future liabilities with our current debt.
Recall that our right wing friend's argument is that FDR's contribution to our national debt was caused by "entitlements," not WWII spending/ depression which is clearly not true.
What will drive future debt, and how to address the shortfall is a separate (and unrelated) question. It's interesting, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
-
That being said, a large part of FDRs debt was not incurred by the war, but instead the entitlement programs that he created.
Not even a little bit. Here's a graph. Note that the first New Deal started in 1933, and the second New Deal started in 1935, and the US entered World War 2 in 1941. See how the debt doesn't go up until after we entered the war? That shows that you're completely wrong, and making up facts. Please stop making up facts.
-
You are conflating future liabilities with our current debt.
Umm, no. I agreed with you in the first part of that post that future liabilities are not part of current debt: "If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct. Things would look much worse if the government had to do so."
But each year, as the federal govt. distributes more than it receives, it issues debt to pay the shortfall. See the second part and links therein.
-
Social Security Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund) (tl;dr even experts argue over whether the Social security trust fund of nearly $2.8 trillion 'exists' (since all but $18 billion has been borrowed in inter-governmental loans)- skip to the end of the page for that head-spinner).
Debt has increased under both republican and democratic leadership for various reasons over time.
(edit - moved the other portion of this post to a new.. uh, post).
-
Oh I read/skimmed the links.
We can talk about future liabilities with the aging of the baby boomer generation. It's just a complete different discussion from the current one which is about Jeremy's "making shit up" about the cause of FDRs deficit.
-
"Entitlements" are not included in the national debt.
If by this you mean the liability for future payments that the US govt. would have to account for if subject to business accounting practices, that is correct. Things would look much worse if the government had to do so.
That's federal budget 101. Our "entitlements" have a separate trust fund and are still in surplus. That is to date they have collected more than they have paid.
You need to start reading actual reality based reporting. Your arguments are embarrassingly misguided.
If you are talking about the cumulative differences between annual spending and tax revenue, and the gross outstanding federal debt issued by the United States Department of the Treasury to pay for those shortfalls, however, entitlements have been and are huge contributors to the national debt.
For many numbers, see
http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/debt_central.php#agency
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy16rs12012n_1li1n
For generic observations, see
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/national-debt-guide/faqs/how-did-debt-get-so-big/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/nov/22/marco-rubio/medicare-and-social-security-not-defense-are-drivi/
You are conflating future liabilities with our current debt.
Recall that our right wing friend's argument is that FDR's contribution to our national debt was caused by "entitlements," not WWII spending/ depression which is clearly not true.
What will drive future debt, and how to address the shortfall is a separate (and unrelated) question. It's interesting, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I'm not entirely right wing, I just don't want to become a socialist nation. Yes I want to cut entitlement funding, start zoning out social security, and balance the budget. But I also want to greatly decrease the military budget, I think anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't greatly affect their neighbors, whether that's marry someone of the same sex, get an abortion, do drugs in the privacy of their own home, whatever. I feel like people should have the freedom to choose their own retirement program(not pay social security), get private insurance(why should I, a perfectly healthy adult who tries my best to stay very healthy, have to pay taxes to help fund the payment of insurance for people who don't care what they eat, do stupid things to get hurt, etc.), and choose whether or not they want to pay for college, and which one to go to(so I'd rather pay for 2 years for a community college and 2 years for university, rather than pay taxes for people to go to expensive public colleges the rest of my life). I don't think me wanting people to have the freedom to spend their money as they choose makes me right wing.
-
Back to the presidential candidates ? :
Bob W MoonShadow linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago. I've since been listening to Mr. Adam's audio book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. He makes a lot of hilarious points in this book, one of which is this: if you think people make important decisions from a point of rationality, you'll go through life feeling baffled and confused. And that's because people make decisions before they even get to the point of rationalization. Their subconscious feely brain-part knows what it likes and then hands off this preference to the rational part of the brain to come up with some bullshit story for choosing that preference.
This election is particularly interesting because so many candidates are playing to this reality of human-behavior. Examples of emotional bullshit appeals to our subconsciouses:
- proposing crazy solutions to minor problems (a wall along the Mexican border to keep people out)
- painting StephenKing-esque scenarios in our minds (CF in tears over evil Planned Parenthood doctors selling body parts to the highest bidder)
- using PUA 101 tricks to make us want them (Trump's alternate negging and approving of other candidates with barely any discussion of their policy decisions or objective qualifications)
I could go on but I don't want to introduce a bunch of points for you to contend with... because my main point is this:
It's a freaking freak show. Let's talk about the individual actors (yes, actors).
This freak show makes me oddly attracted to learning more about Bernie Sanders. I've been reading up on his FTT tax proposal*, learning more about income and wealth inequality aka the 1% v 99%**, and educating myself on carried interest***
But I'm an engineer by training. I'm jumping into research, even as I realize my feely brain-part has already decided who I'm voting for... even if she hasn't passed the info over to my pre-frontal reasoning centers yet. Reading up on the issues may be crazy but, hey, I'm human. It's what we do.
Passing the popcorn, who y'all wanna talk about next?
* FFT tax: Mr. Sanders proposes a tax of .5% per equity/derivatives trade. As an individual investor who posts 0-5 trades a month, the idea of the tax could be okay but the actual tax he proposes is WAY too high. A $50 tax on a $10,000 transaction TLH transaction? No thanks. $5 may be more palatable but still too high IMO. So... maybe ... instead of a .5% tax we do a .01%? I could live with that. In aggregate, .01% may not raise enough $ to fund 4 year college educations for all, but perhaps could finance 2 years comm college for all? That'd be pretty bitchin'.
**Spoiler: Mr. Pickety's Capital in the 21st Century fails to make me chuckle as often as Mr. Adam's How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. Results may vary.
*** Carried Interest: Yes! it should be taxed as ordinary income, duh.
edits: formatting, making text more concise, grammar, punctuation, attribution for orig Scott Adam's link, y'know, the usual stuff.
-
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
-
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
-
Tax cuts. Don't forget tax cuts and supply side voodoo economics.
-
Back to the presidential candidates ? :
Bob W (I think) linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.
I believe that I was the first to link there from this thread.
I've since been listening to Mr. Adam's audio book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. He makes a lot of hilarious points in this book, one of which is this: if you think people make important decisions from a point of rationality, you'll go through life feeling baffled and confused. And that's because people make decisions before they even get to the point of rationalization. Their subconscious feely brain-part knows what it likes and then hands off this preference to the rational part of the brain to come up with some bullshit story for choosing that preference.
That's Adam's 'moist robot' theorem. That the vast majority of adults aren't really independently thinking humans, but organic machines programmed to act a certain way and conditioned to convince themselves that they like whatever they were programmed to do.
-
Sounds like a gestalt impression of Kahneman's more rigorous Thinking Fast and Slow.
-
Back to the presidential candidates ? :
Bob W (I think) linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.
I believe that I was the first to link there from this thread.
Fixed it to give you credit - thanks!
-
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
I've been following the thread of this particular discussion and one significant detail that has been left out is that deficits are NOT always necessarily bad and policies put in place to remove deficits could do more harm than good.
-
Back to the presidential candidates ? :
Bob W (I think) linked to Scott Adam's blog a while ago.
I believe that I was the first to link there from this thread.
I've since been listening to Mr. Adam's audio book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big. He makes a lot of hilarious points in this book, one of which is this: if you think people make important decisions from a point of rationality, you'll go through life feeling baffled and confused. And that's because people make decisions before they even get to the point of rationalization. Their subconscious feely brain-part knows what it likes and then hands off this preference to the rational part of the brain to come up with some bullshit story for choosing that preference.
That's Adam's 'moist robot' theorem. That the vast majority of adults aren't really independently thinking humans, but organic machines programmed to act a certain way and conditioned to convince themselves that they like whatever they were programmed to do.
Yes, Moonshadow -- you are the one who turned me onto it. Thanks for that.
-
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
You have that right. Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years. Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton? Actual budget surpluses. At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.
I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path. Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.
What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt? If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range. Amazing really.
Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household. Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan. Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this. Haven't heard Trump address it. One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes. Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.
We're screwed.
-
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
You have that right. Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years. Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton? Actual budget surpluses. At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.
I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path. Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.
What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt? If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range. Amazing really.
Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household. Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan. Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this. Haven't heard Trump address it. One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes. Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.
We're screwed.
Why would assume that? Most dems I know want a balanced budget.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
-
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
You have that right. Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years. Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton? Actual budget surpluses. At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.
I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path. Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.
What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt? If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range. Amazing really.
Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household. Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan. Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this. Haven't heard Trump address it. One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes. Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.
We're screwed.
I agree that W Bush hurt the budget a lot, but republicans budgets helped out the Clinton administration to make the surplus. I think if we want to get out of debt, we HAVE to reduce military spending, reduce entitlement spending, and raise taxes. Since one side wants to reduce taxes and increase military spending, while the other wants to increase entitlement spending, we are definitely screwed. Rand Paul hates wars and wants to reduce entitlements, but he also wants to greatly decrease taxes, so it's basically a wash. John Kasich says he wants to reduce military spending, but I'm guessing it would just shift some money to the navy from other areas and the budget would stay about the same, he also wants to make a balanced budget, so that would certainly help, but is it possible? Bernie Sanders wants to massively increase entitlement spending, increase taxes, and reduce war. I hate the idea of increasing entitlement spending because entitlements rarely go away and you're stuck with them forever, where as wars usually end at least for a little while, and taxes change quite often. The idea of either Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Carly Fiorina just makes me gag, it would be so horrible.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
Well everyone is a vast exaggeration but you have the problem defined pretty well.
So what happens when there isn't a dem or pub at the tiller? No one knows. There is only one choice in that category.
For those who have an interest in the Reuters poll I mention way above ---
September 18th, 2015 (5-day rolling)
972 Responses
Businessman Donald Trump
27.8%
Wouldn’t vote
23.6%
Surgeon and author Ben Carson
10.7%
Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush
8.8%
Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee
4.9%
NJ Gov. Chris Christie
4.1%
Former Sen. candidate and business executive Carly Fiorina
3.8%
Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz
3.5%
Ken. Sen. Rand Paul
3%
Wis. Gov. Scott
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
Well everyone is a vast exaggeration but you have the problem defined pretty well.
So what happens when there isn't a dem or pub at the tiller? No one knows. There is only one choice in that category.
For those who have an interest in the Reuters poll I mention way above ---
September 18th, 2015 (5-day rolling)
972 Responses
Businessman Donald Trump
27.8%
Wouldn’t vote
23.6%
Surgeon and author Ben Carson
10.7%
Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush
8.8%
Former Ark. Gov. Mike Huckabee
4.9%
NJ Gov. Chris Christie
4.1%
Former Sen. candidate and business executive Carly Fiorina
3.8%
Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz
3.5%
Ken. Sen. Rand Paul
3%
Wis. Gov. Scott
Or we could just vote Ralph Nader, there's no maximum age restriction right?
-
So what happens when there isn't a dem or pub at the tiller? No one knows. There is only one choice in that category.
Ah, no. There has always been a third choice, and I've voted that way every single time. You are basicly assuming that third party or write in candidates can never win. Which might be true, but it is always a choice. I have never voted for the lessor of two evils.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.
Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.
Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.
Bingo.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.
Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
66%, I think if we ignore this then it will be extremely more dificult to balance the budget. Also, ignoring future funding issues is ignorant. Those will be added to the debt when they hit, the main point of balancing the budget is to stop going into deeper debt.
-
The heritage foundation? Are you kidding?
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
LOL, I have been involved in politics my entire life, please don't assume what others know. My mother has written legislation, herself, at the local and federal level. I was speaking of politicians, "special interest groups" like unions and voters. The majority in all groups want a balanced budget. They don't want a balanced budget amendment because of the fiscal harm it can do during recessions but they want a balanced budget.
Everyone wants a balanced budget, no one wants debt. But the problem is that the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
You keep bringing up entitlement reduction as if it is somehow key to balancing the budget. Most entitlements are currently funded by specific taxes and have funds that are in surplus. Now we know there are future funding issues that are coming, but that is irrelevant to balancing today's budget.
Democrats and Republicans were able to balance the budget 20 years ago, mostly by raising taxes and controlling spending growth. At the time there was talk of a peace dividend, but I can't recall if military spending was reduced or merely slowed. My main point is that there was no reduction in entitlements. My point is that balancing the budget is mainly about raising taxes and controlling spending. Entitlements could be part of the solution, but do not necessarily have to be.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
66%, I think if we ignore this then it will be extremely more dificult to balance the budget. Also, ignoring future funding issues is ignorant. Those will be added to the debt when they hit, the main point of balancing the budget is to stop going into deeper debt.
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
You have that right. Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years. Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton? Actual budget surpluses. At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.
I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path. Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.
What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt? If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range. Amazing really.
Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household. Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan. Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this. Haven't heard Trump address it. One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes. Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.
We're screwed.
Why would assume that? Most dems I know want a balanced budget.
Most of the dems I know are supporting Bernie Sanders and he's proposing programs at a cost of an additional $18T over 10 years, with tax increases of just over $6T during the same period. Maybe they don't understand what 'balanced' means.
-
They Dems you know aren't the lobbyist writing the budgets. Virtually all Pubs I know want a balanced budget. It will not happen until there is some sort of revolution. Thus the interest in Trump.
Sorry, jeremy. I shouldn't have labeled you right wing. Everyone has their own unique view of the world of course
But the fact that you have such an inaccurate view of what causes deficits, and that you have such a hostile view of social programs, and you appear to support only Republican candidates does suggest that you are right wing.
I will be the first to admit that I am left-wing. I'm proud of it in fact.
bad budgets, large entitlement programs, insufficient taxes, bad economies and wars cause deficits.
You have that right. Of course it is the Repulicrats who have lead this for the past 15 years. Remember the good old days of Newt Gingrich/Bill Clinton? Actual budget surpluses. At the time I recall they were predicting that not only would be our of debt be gone by now but we would have a huge pile of cash setting around.
I would say that the Bush tax cuts were the impetus that set us on this path. Tax cuts only work if they don't have or negative impact on tax income and/or spending is kept within reason.
What are we at now 19 Trillion in debt if you don't count student loan debt? If you include unfunded social security obligations we are probably in the 80 Trillion range. Amazing really.
Well look at the 19 Trillion --- That is around 380,000 per tax paying household. Luckily we are paying 2% interest on that loan. Sadly none of the Pubs seems interested in this. Haven't heard Trump address it. One would assume that the basic Dem plan would be to raise taxes. Of course they will raise spending more than taxes.
We're screwed.
Why would assume that? Most dems I know want a balanced budget.
Most of the dems I know are supporting Bernie Sanders and he's proposing programs at a cost of an additional $18T over 10 years, with tax increases of just over $6T during the same period. Maybe they don't understand what 'balanced' means.
At least one analysis showed that the $18T cost actually was a total savings of $500M because a single payer system is so much more efficient than how existing system of private insurers. I think that may have been societal savings, as opposed to government spending. Unsure as I haven't read the actual analysis, only news reports on it.
-
The point must be made once again. All of these conservative crocodile tears over debt are a calculated deception.
Supply side economics blow up deficits, democratic tax increases shrink them. See Reagan, bush 1, bush 2, Clinton, and Obama.
If deficits are your primary concern, (and frankly they are not mine) one thing is clear: never vote republican for president.
The truth is that most conservatives are just anti-social safety net (Medicare Medicaid, social security, etc) and pro tax cuts to the rich for ideological reasons. But since this is an unappetizing message to most Americans they march out their Trojan horse deficit argument, conveniently ignoring that the deficit is of their own creation.
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
The charts in http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs are merely pictures based on OMB numbers.
-
the dems aren't willing to reduce entitlement spending and the pubs aren't willing to raise taxes or reduce the military budget.
When you say it that way, it seems clear that only one party even has a possible option for balancing the budget, and it involves raising taxes.
To paraphrase...
Group one: must spend more, can't earn more.
Group two: must spend more, trying to earn more.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/budget-entitlement-programs
Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report. Heritage openly admits to being a partisan mouthpiece advocacy group funded by corporate interestd like the Koch brothers, the Coors family, Chase, Exxon/Mobil, and Dow chemical. They are not a reliable source for anything.
-
The point must be made once again. All of these conservative crocodile tears over debt are a calculated deception.
Supply side economics blow up deficits, democratic tax increases shrink them. See Reagan, bush 1, bush 2, Clinton, and Obama.
If deficits are your primary concern, (and frankly they are not mine) one thing is clear: never vote republican for president.
The truth is that most conservatives are just anti-social safety net (Medicare Medicaid, social security, etc) and pro tax cuts to the rich for ideological reasons. But since this is an unappetizing message to most Americans they march out their Trojan horse deficit argument, conveniently ignoring that the deficit is of their own creation.
Googling balanced budgets in us history, I found a CATO publication written in 1998 claiming that the Republicans deserved credit for balancing the budget. Even so, I found these paragraphs quite revealings...
"Now for the bad news for GOP partisans. The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.
We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?"
So it really wasn't a balanced budget that these 'fiscal conservatives' were after. That was merely a means to another ideological end, shrinking government and cutting/ending the social safety net. Their worst fear was that some of the budget savings might 'GASP' be used to find new ways to help people.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget)
-
Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report.
Facts are facts. Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations. Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts? If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
I don't disagree.
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
Later Edit
Actually it turns out that income from payroll taxes and interest on the trust fund itself exceeds the payments going out. SS Trustees anticipate this continuing through 2019, when payments will exceed payroll taxes and trust fund interest.
I have no problem with changes to SS to keep the program long term viable. I just see that as a separate issue from budget balancing. Ideally SS and similar programs should have no impact whatsoever on the budget and thus should not necessarily be part of some grand budget balancing solution.
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
I don't disagree.
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
I don't disagree.
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.
More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.
-
There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
The % sign doesn't necessarily mean "percent of the same thing." Need to look at absolute dollars coming in vs. going out. E.g., 2.9% of $1,000,000 would be more than 25% of $100.
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
I don't disagree.
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.
More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.
Well where does the money for medicaid and other health care programs come from?
-
There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
The % sign doesn't necessarily mean "percent of the same thing." Need to look at absolute dollars coming in vs. going out. E.g., 2.9% of $1,000,000 would be more than 25% of $100.
I'm aware that the average effective federal tax rate is only like 20% or something, but 2.9% of 20% is not 25% of 20%.
-
There is a 2.9% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 2.9% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
The % sign doesn't necessarily mean "percent of the same thing." Need to look at absolute dollars coming in vs. going out. E.g., 2.9% of $1,000,000 would be more than 25% of $100.
I'm aware that the average effective federal tax rate is only like 20% or something, but 2.9% of 20% is not 25% of 20%.
Except they are not "of the same thing." The 2.9% is "of total company payrolls" while the 25% is "of federal spending."
-
Where can I find a brick wall to bash my head against?
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
I don't disagree.
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.
More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.
Well where does the money for medicaid and other health care programs come from?
Heh, to keep the fruit analogy going, I made a comment about peaches, which you then responded to by comparing apples with apples, oranges and other types of fruit. Now, after I pointed out your false comparison, you eliminate the apples and just want to talk about oranges and other types of fruit that are not peaches nor apples.
I'm not sure that has anything to do whatsoever regarding what I wrote about peaches, or even apples for that matter, but to satisfy your curiosity, I believe that oranges and some other types of fruit are purchased out of general revenues.
So can we concede that peaches and apples that are paid for out of their own special peach and apple funds do not need to be part of our overall budget balancing for fruit? :)
-
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
Later Edit
Actually it turns out that income from payroll taxes and interest on the trust fund itself exceeds the payments going out. SS Trustees anticipate this continuing through 2019, when payments will exceed payroll taxes and trust fund interest.
I have no problem with changes to SS to keep the program long term viable. I just see that as a separate issue from budget balancing. Ideally SS and similar programs should have no impact whatsoever on the budget and thus should not necessarily be part of some grand budget balancing solution.
That's a great question. Unfortunately, agreeing on the premises of the question itself, let alone the answer, is not easy. Malaysia41 highlighted why:
Social Security Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund) (tl;dr even experts argue over whether the Social security trust fund of nearly $2.8 trillion 'exists' (since all but $18 billion has been borrowed in inter-governmental loans)- skip to the end of the page for that head-spinner).
FWIW, let's go with "payroll taxes are $100 and SS payments are $80." Now, what happens to the $20 difference? It seems (but see M41's note for caveats) that $20 goes into "special Treasury bonds that are guaranteed by the U.S. Government. (http://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/WhatAreTheTrust.htm)" In other words, bonds that will be repaid by future taxes of all types collected by the federal govt.
Much as we might like to designate our individual taxes for our own favorite spending, and no other, it just doesn't work that way in the long run. The govt. takes in what it takes in, and spends what it spends, paying no more than lip service to designations. This may get more interesting when the "trust funds" are depleted, but I suspect congressional and/or executive action will remove any impediments irritating to the political majority at that time.
-
So basically you want to balance the budget by keeping in place the taxes that were specifically put in place to fund Social Security, but then not spend that money on Social Security?
The federal govt. collects many different taxes. It spends those taxes, plus the amount it collects from selling Treasury debt, on many different things.
There have been many discussions in which people object to having their taxes support program X but favor Y, while others favor X but don't support Y.
We can debate if a balanced budget is good or bad, but if we accept the goal of a balanced budget it makes the most sense to look at the largest opportunities for cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, rather than working on the round-off errors.
I don't disagree.
But if you get $100 in payroll taxes meant to fund Social Security, how can you argue that the $80 that you spend on SS is what is causing your budget to be out of whack?
There is a 1.45% tax for medicare, yet medicare, medicaid and other health care programs were 25% of federal spending last year. 1.45% tax doesn't cover 25% of federal spending.
So you are comparing apples with apples, oranges and bananas? Sure all three are fruit, but how about sticking with apples to apples.
More telling would be the balance of the medicare trust fund, the specific incoming dollars from the payroll deduction and the specific outflowing medicare payments. That at least would give us an understanding in terms of how to make medicare solvent over the long term.
Well where does the money for medicaid and other health care programs come from?
Heh, to keep the fruit analogy going, I made a comment about peaches, which you then responded to by comparing apples with apples, oranges and other types of fruit. Now, after I pointed out your false comparison, you eliminate the apples and just want to talk about oranges and other types of fruit that are not peaches nor apples.
I'm not sure that has anything to do whatsoever regarding what I wrote about peaches, or even apples for that matter, but to satisfy your curiosity, I believe that oranges and some other types of fruit are purchased out of general revenues.
So can we concede that peaches and apples that are paid for out of their own special peach and apple funds do not need to be part of our overall budget balancing for fruit? :)
Oh so you say they are paid by from general revenues, not their own specific revenue like someone previously claimed all entitlements were? So we could take and reduce some of these entitlements to help balance the budget you mean? Who ever would of thought.
-
Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report.
Facts are facts. Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations. Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts? If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.
I am not going through all the data when a decent percentage of times, when that is done, it is inaccurate. I'd rather get the data (for both sides) from BBC which is the least biased.
-
I'm going with the "anyone but Trump option." I am actually against illegal immigration and agree with some of Trump's other stands, but am afraid of where the country would be headed with him at the helm...
-
Which candidates are capable of crafting foreign policy that takes a long view?
Our country has a distinguished history of pursuing myopic foreign policy. Here are a couple examples off the top of my head:
* CIA/MI6 murder of Iran's Mussadegh. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)
Ostensible Short term objective: oust a commie.
Real short term objective: let UK keep oil profits rather than share equitably with Iranian people & gov't.
Long term outcome: Rise of radical Ayatollah regime and current animosity between nations. Showing the world we could be played like an accordion. MI6 says, "that guy's a commie" and the CIA goes in and smokes his ass. (Facepalm).
The right long term play would have been to work with the democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation and respect his government, negotiate oil deals as respectful equals.
* Iran Contra Affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Ostensible Short term objective: Free hostages and hey, while we're at it, stop communism in South America!
Real short term objective: I don't know - those freaking administration officials under Reagan were straight up nutso.
Long term outcome: Showing the world we could be played like a flute. (Again, "look - commies!") Compromising our values.
The right long term play would have been not sell arms to an Iranian carpet salesman, and not send weapons to the Contras.
I could go on, but don't want to push the discussion toward debating the merits of past policies. Oh it's so hard to cut out that list I just typed up. But cut it out I must. Stay focused M41... come back to present day... ah yes, here we are.
In the modern day, our policies of drone strikes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan) and looking the other way as children are raped by Afghan leaders (our allies) in Afghanistan (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html)* echo the shamefully short-sighted strategies of yore. These policies are disastrous in the long run, not to mention outrageously and morally wrong. (No, child rape isn't a cultural difference. It's a crime against humanity. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence) We are obligated to act** when we see such atrocities.)
What's the long game here? There is none. President Obama is following in the footsteps of those who came before him and pursuing losing strategies that focus on the short game; he's creating a dangerous future and compromising our values all at once. I want a president who will play the long game, who will be guided by what we all agree we stand for (human rights, justice, freedom, ... other good stuff), and who can be played by neither ally nor enemy, both of whom may be playing much, much longer games.
Who would that person be?
Just think for a sec, what current candidates, if they had been elected in 2008 for example, would have lead the military to adopt policies that protected children from child rape / aka / crimes against humanity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence) in Afghanistan?
*Watch Ben Anderson's This is What Winning Looks Like a year ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI), to goose your outrage further on this subject.
** Yes, the current policy is to "do something", and that "something" is to report bad acts to the Afghan authorities. But this path is so utterly ineffective, that in reality, the de facto policy is "look the other way."
Sorry to be such a buzzkill. I try to not get caught up in the horrors of the world, and I strive to follow a low info diet. But I voted for the guy currently in office. I'm disappointed in his short-sighted leadership on these two very awful policies overseas. He's irreparably damaging children, their families, and our poor troops who are made to bear witness. I want our next leader to do better.
So I repeat my question: who would do better? Who will craft strategy with our values and the long view in mind?
-
Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report.
Facts are facts. Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations. Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts? If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.
This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.
And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.
Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.
As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies. They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.
In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.
So your advice to consider "the facts" on their own merits is analogous to considering the "facts" presented by a pathological liar on their own merit, and completely ignoring the context, and the overwhelming likelihood that the "facts" are in fact deceptions.
The base rate probability is that Heritsge's claims and figures are false. There is simply not enough time to investigate each and every lie individually. It's far wiser to simply discount any "studies" coming from the heritage foundation in a way that would not be appropriate for those coming from a standard journalistic endeavor, or even a run of the mill right or left leaning think tank.
-
Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report.
Facts are facts. Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations. Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts? If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.
This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.
And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.
Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.
As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies. They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.
In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.
And, sadly, they are far from the only institution with an agenda willing to do this in our modern world. It makes me wonder, sometimes, how long this has been going on, and if we really know anything true about history.
-
Jeremy, if you want to be taken seriously in this discussion, I suggest you refrain from posting anything from sources like the heritage foundation or the drudge report.
Facts are facts. Too many people on the right immediately dismiss anything said by left-leaning people or organizations. Too many people on the left immediately dismiss anything said by right-leaning people or organizations.
Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
In other words, is there something incorrect about those particular heritage charts? If so, please explain, as they seemed simply government numbers in pictures.
This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.
And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.
Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.
As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies. They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.
In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.
And, sadly, they are far from the only institution with an agenda willing to do this in our modern world. It makes me wonder, sometimes, how long this has been going on, and if we really know anything true about history.
That's undoubtedly true MS. We all have our own cognitive biases, regardless of our specific ideologies. The truth looks a little different to all of us.
But there are obvious differences of degree. Propaganda is an effort to knowingly lie to persuade others that that which is not true is in fact true.
This is different practically and ethically from subconsciously underemphasizing some facts and overemphasizing others, I think.
Kind of like fudging your own taxes with a home office deduction is not the same thing as embezzling millions of dollars from unsuspecting retirees. It's a question of scale.
-
But there are obvious differences of degree. Propaganda is an effort to knowingly lie to persuade others that that which is not true is in fact true.
I'm going to have to disagree here, Doc. Propaganda is basicly marketing; it's advertising for an idea, an agenda; that uses your emotional reactions to the story you are being told to affect your thinking. It's certainly possible for propaganda to be based in facts, and that is often when it is most effective.
-
This is one of those comments that seems inherently balanced and reasonable but in fact it is not.
And the reason is simple. The heritage foundation has a clear record of lying. Not of representing a perspective that I disagree with, but of lying.
Their studies and figures have the veneer of truth, but are complete fabrications.
As an example heritage teported that health-care premiums paid by taxpayers would skyrocket under Obamacare by conveniently ignoring the healthcare subsidies. They also famously estimated the cost of immigration reform by ignoring the economic growth associated with immigration.
In other words Heritage is nothing more than a fringe right wing propaganda shop with a proven record of lying.
So your advice to consider "the facts" on their own merits is analogous to considering the "facts" presented by a pathological liar on their own merit, and completely ignoring the context, and the overwhelming likelihood that the "facts" are in fact deceptions.
The base rate probability is that Heritsge's claims and figures are false. There is simply not enough time to investigate each and every lie individually. It's far wiser to simply discount any "studies" coming from the heritage foundation in a way that would not be appropriate for those coming from a standard journalistic endeavor, or even a run of the mill right or left leaning think tank.
Fortunately I have nothing to do with Heritage so I won't take that personally.
The examples you give here refer to estimates about the future. As the saying goes (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no-predict/), such estimates can be difficult under the best of circumstances, let alone when assumptions are hidden to manipulate the prediction.
The cited links, however, have nothing to do with predictions. They are (I believe, until shown otherwise) nothing more than regurgitation of OMB numbers in graphical form, showing that spending on entitlements makes up a huge portion of federal spending. Are you saying that entitlement spending is not such a large portion of federal spending?
Discussing the last question seems more interesting than discussing the merits or lack thereof of Heritage.
-
The cited links, however, have nothing to do with predictions. They are (I believe, until shown otherwise) nothing more than regurgitation of OMB numbers in graphical form, showing that spending on entitlements makes up a huge portion of federal spending. Are you saying that entitlement spending is not such a large portion of federal spending?
Obviously not. A simple reading of the thread will tell you that that has never been my claim.
As the baby boom generation ages, entitlements will be a major outlay in the future.
Lots of ways to address that, but that's a completely seperate topic.
This whole tangent started with Jeremy's statement that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.
Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.
-
Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.
Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.
In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes: $758B
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes: $232B
Medicare spending: $526B
There's more, but that should be enough for starters.
For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
-
Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.
Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.
In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes: $758B
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes: $232B
Medicare spending: $526B
There's more, but that should be enough for starters.
I don't know about Medicare, but the difference between SS taxes and spending is currently covered by interest earned from the SS trust fund. Even once that is no longer the case, SS benefits can be paid by SS taxes and by drawing down the trust fund.
Is this sustainable? No.
Is this a separate issue from general budget balancing? Yes.
-
Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.
Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.
In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes: $758B
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes: $232B
Medicare spending: $526B
There's more, but that should be enough for starters.
For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.
-
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Social Security, yes. Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare
-
For a better link with more historical data, from Medicare itself, see https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/reportstrustfunds/downloads/tr2014.pdf page 246-248, and "General Revenue" contributes to Medicare spending every year since 1970.
-
The cited links, however, have nothing to do with predictions. They are (I believe, until shown otherwise) nothing more than regurgitation of OMB numbers in graphical form, showing that spending on entitlements makes up a huge portion of federal spending. Are you saying that entitlement spending is not such a large portion of federal spending?
Obviously not. A simple reading of the thread will tell you that that has never been my claim.
As the baby boom generation ages, entitlements will be a major outlay in the future.
Lots of ways to address that, but that's a completely seperate topic.
This whole tangent started with Jeremy's statement that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.
Since entitlements have, to date, run a budget surplus, blaming our current federal deficit on entitlements (as opposed to insufficient tax receipts for our current level of non"entitlement" spending) is laughably false.
It's a limited point. Shouldn't be too hard to follow.
It actually started with you saying it is laughable to vote for a republican if you want to balance the budget. Even though the only balanced budget since we landed on the moon was thanks to republicans, chiefly John Kasich.
-
Medicare is a bit more complicated as there are 2 different trust funds that pay for different services.
Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare part A) does not receive funds out of general revenues and is projected to be solvent through 2030.
Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare parts B and D) pays 75% of benefits from general revenues. The remaining 25% comes from premiums paid in and apparently these premiums are set each year to cover 25% so the ratio shouldn't change.
Thus, I think the 75% of benefits that come from the general revenue for Medicare parts B and D are legitimate candidates for budget balance discussions. On the other hand, Medicare A's issues are like that of SS. We need to consider changes to prolong the solvency of the trust fund, but it should not be part of generic budget balancing discussions.
https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html (https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html)
http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt (http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt)
-
Jeremy, anyway you slice it, In the modern era , deficits have uniformly increased under republican presidents and decreased under Dems.
So you can attribute that reality to a single republican congressman If you want, but you would be an idiot to vote republican for president unless larger deficits are your goal.
-
It actually started with you saying it is laughable to vote for a republican if you want to balance the budget. Even though the only balanced budget since we landed on the moon was thanks to republicans, chiefly John Kasich.
How much was Kasich really responsible for balancing the budget? I'm not disagreeing that the Republicans pushed to slow federal spending, but would that have been enough to balance the budget without the tax increases that Clinton pushed through a few years prior? I wonder if anyone has any figures comparing the extra money gained from the tax increases versus the money saved from slowing spending increases.
-
It actually started with you saying it is laughable to vote for a republican if you want to balance the budget. Even though the only balanced budget since we landed on the moon was thanks to enormous increases in revenue due in part to tax increases, a great economy and an incredibly overvalued stock market (about triple historical average valuation)republicans, chiefly John Kasich.
FTFY
Tax revenues increased 58% from 1992 to 2000, increasing from 17% to 20% of GDP. Spending also increased. If you want to brag that Kasich was responsible for those increased taxes that caused the balanced budget, I'd be happy to hear your argument.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
-
Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.
In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes: $758B
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes: $232B
Medicare spending: $526B
There's more, but that should be enough for starters.
For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it miles.
Currently we are spending more in social security and Medicare than we collect in taxes nominally targeted for those programs. Budget for mandatory programs (mostly entitlements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending)) is $2.5B. Budget for discretionary programs is $1.2B.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that any worthwhile strategy to reduce our current debt can ignore "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Denying data adds nothing.
Yes, your statements are more historical in nature while the similar sentences in this post deal more with the current and future situation, so it is possible we are both correct.
-
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Social Security, yes. Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare
Fair point. Medicare accounting is complex and difficult to pin down as above.
But again, recall that this whole discussion is about Jeremy's factually incorrect claim that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.
Please remember that Medicare was enacted by president Johnson in the 60s long after FDR had died. So again the central point here is that that claim is 100% false, as SSN (which is the entitlement that FDR enacted unlike Medicare )has run a surplus and therefore has contributed less than nothing to our federal deficit.
-
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Social Security, yes. Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare
Fair point. Medicare accounting is complex and difficult to pin down as above.
But again, recall that this whole discussion is about Jeremy's factually incorrect claim that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.
Please remember that Medicare was enacted by president Johnson in the 60s long after FDR had died. So again the central point here is that that claim is 100% false, as SSN (which is the entitlement that FDR enacted unlike Medicare )has run a surplus and therefore has contributed less than nothing to our federal deficit.
Oh yeah, no disagreement about the ridiculousness of Jeremy's claim, which I posted a chart to completely debunk. Oddly enough, he hasn't responded to that, even though it completely destroyed his argument.
-
Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.
In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes: $758B
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes: $232B
Medicare spending: $526B
There's more, but that should be enough for starters.
For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it miles.
Currently we are spending more in social security and Medicare than we collect in taxes nominally targeted for those programs. Budget for mandatory programs (mostly entitlements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending)) is $2.5B. Budget for discretionary programs is $1.2B.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that any worthwhile strategy to reduce our current debt can ignore "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Denying data adds nothing.
Yes, your statements are more historical in nature while the similar sentences in this post deal more with the current and future situation, so it is possible we are both correct.
Bingo.
You are arguing with me about the future drivers of debt, which are not the same as the past drivers of our current debt, (which was the subject being discussed.)
-
What I love about Bernie Sanders is that he's not taking big money from corporations. That says everything. Every other candidate (except Trump I guess) is beholden to the interests of their corporate sponsors. I'm all for democracy not oligarchy! Have you seen the graphs? Hilary isn't a democrat, she's just a corporate chess piece. Same with Bush and all the others.
With Sanders we have a chance at an actual democracy, which would be nice.
And if you dont think he can win... he's already head to head with Hilary in the polls, and many people don't know who he is. Once more people hear from him, more will support him.
And then I actually think he's more likely to attract Republican votes in the general than someone like Hilary.
Go Bernie!
-
What I love about Bernie Sanders is that he's not taking big money from corporations.
Neither is Larry Lessig....
https://lessig2016.us/
-
You are arguing with me about the future drivers of debt, which are not the same as the past drivers of our current debt
Yes, we agree!
(which was the subject being discussed.)
Probably too many subjects being discussed. The "Heritage kerfuffle" did arise from a post about current and future budgets. (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/2016-presidential-candidate/msg816783/#msg816783)
-
Jeremy, anyway you slice it, In the modern era , deficits have uniformly increased under republican presidents and decreased under Dems.
So you can attribute that reality to a single republican congressman If you want, but you would be an idiot to vote republican for president unless larger deficits are your goal.
About 50% of the country votes for Republicans and I promise that large deficits aren't their goal, I guess they are all idiots.
-
Your conclusion not mine.
-
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Social Security, yes. Medicare has never been fully funded through its payroll tax deduction, however:
http://pgpf.org/budget-explainer/medicare
Fair point. Medicare accounting is complex and difficult to pin down as above.
But again, recall that this whole discussion is about Jeremy's factually incorrect claim that FDRs deficit was caused by "entitlements" not WWII or the depression.
Please remember that Medicare was enacted by president Johnson in the 60s long after FDR had died. So again the central point here is that that claim is 100% false, as SSN (which is the entitlement that FDR enacted unlike Medicare )has run a surplus and therefore has contributed less than nothing to our federal deficit.
"A large part is from entitlements" I never said the war had nothing to do with the debt, the war is how we incurred a majority of the debt. But the entitlements were also a large part. Maybe the depression also affected the debt based on the fact that it encouraged him to create the entitlements and they had less tax revenue.
-
Guess we're just limited folks then, or maybe we just don't know the difference between "false" and "laughably false"...'cause from where we sit the numbers don't support your contention.
In brief for the 2015 budget:
Social Security taxes: $758B
Social Security spending: $896B
Medicare taxes: $232B
Medicare spending: $526B
There's more, but that should be enough for starters.
For more non-Heritage reading, see:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (The federal budget year ends 30-Sept so these numbers are close to final)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_social_safety_nets
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf (see Table S-5, p. 170)
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it MDM.
To date we have collected more in social security and Medicare taxes than we have spent.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that our current debt is caused by "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Posting non sequitur links adds nothing.
It is quite a simple concept. I'm honestly surprised you are having a hard time with it miles.
Currently we are spending more in social security and Medicare than we collect in taxes nominally targeted for those programs. Budget for mandatory programs (mostly entitlements (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending)) is $2.5B. Budget for discretionary programs is $1.2B.
Given that, is is "laughably false" to claim that any worthwhile strategy to reduce our current debt can ignore "entitlements."
If you disagree with that statement, please address it specifically. Denying data adds nothing.
Yes, your statements are more historical in nature while the similar sentences in this post deal more with the current and future situation, so it is possible we are both correct.
Bingo.
You are arguing with me about the future drivers of debt, which are not the same as the past drivers of our current debt, (which was the subject being discussed.)
Alexi -- since presumably 100% of your earned income is derived from either Medicare, Medicaid or the ACA insurance tax/scam, you may wish to add that as a disclaimer to all your posts on this thread, lest your propaganda be confused with objective opinions.
To back up to your point about Republicans being opposed to entitlements. This simply isn't true. The Republican money backers (you know the Koch brothers and wall street bankers) sing this song. I live in a very Red area of the state and I can tell you that A. Republican voters do not consider Medicare or Soc Sec entitlement programs as they have paid into them and B. They are very much in favor of them. Of course they dislike Medicaid as this is a total give away with no copays and encourages laziness. Disclaimer -- My family derives our income 100% from Medicaid based programs.
I might also mention that a many if not a majority of Republican voters have no problem with taxing high income earners like yourself at very high rates. As I recall that Republican (Eisenhower) rate prior to Kennedy was in the 90% range. You may also notice that Mr. Trump (not in with or supported by the Republican funders by the way) has already mentioned raising taxes on some classes of swindlers. Most Republicans will back a sensible tax on higher income earners in order to reduce the deficit.
Here's hoping that Bernie pushes for a 90% tax on those earning over 200K per year and redistributes that to me.
-
I don't take ethics suggestions from anti-Semites. That would be stupid.
[MOD EDIT: if you're going to throw stuff like that out there, you're going to have at least quote what you're talking about and who said it.]
-
When I originally made this poll, I figured "Other" would mostly be John Kasich (more moderate in the Republican field). I left Carly Fiorina off, because I (like many people) thought she was basically a non-issue.
I'm wondering how people who have already voted in the poll might update... (For the more forum-savvy of you, is there a way in the poll to reflect these updates?)
1. Clearly, Scott Walker is gone.
2. Lindsey Graham is basically a non-issue at this point (not just because he's still at the kiddie table, and the most hawkish of conservatives, but also because of poll numbers).
3. Carly Fiorina probably belongs on the poll now, given her polling numbers nationally.
4. I wonder if any Rand Paul supporters on this forum would change their vote, given his performance in debates.
5. There is still a question of whether Biden will throw his name in for the Dem. nomination, which would make that a more spirited primary than simply Hillary vs. Bernie.
Thoughts?
-
Where are Pat Paulsen and Wavy Gravy when you need them?
-
When I originally made this poll, I figured "Other" would mostly be John Kasich (more moderate in the Republican field). I left Carly Fiorina off, because I (like many people) thought she was basically a non-issue.
I'm wondering how people who have already voted in the poll might update... (For the more forum-savvy of you, is there a way in the poll to reflect these updates?)
1. Clearly, Scott Walker is gone.
2. Lindsey Graham is basically a non-issue at this point (not just because he's still at the kiddie table, and the most hawkish of conservatives, but also because of poll numbers).
3. Carly Fiorina probably belongs on the poll now, given her polling numbers nationally.
4. I wonder if any Rand Paul supporters on this forum would change their vote, given his performance in debates.
5. There is still a question of whether Biden will throw his name in for the Dem. nomination, which would make that a more spirited primary than simply Hillary vs. Bernie.
Thoughts?
Can it be a ranking poll? Because I have an order of preference that just choosing my current favorite doesn't reflect well.
EDIT: and the old poll doesn't reflect the newer entries into the Dem nomination race either.
-
When I originally made this poll, I figured "Other" would mostly be John Kasich (more moderate in the Republican field). I left Carly Fiorina off, because I (like many people) thought she was basically a non-issue.
I'm wondering how people who have already voted in the poll might update... (For the more forum-savvy of you, is there a way in the poll to reflect these updates?)
1. Clearly, Scott Walker is gone.
2. Lindsey Graham is basically a non-issue at this point (not just because he's still at the kiddie table, and the most hawkish of conservatives, but also because of poll numbers).
3. Carly Fiorina probably belongs on the poll now, given her polling numbers nationally.
4. I wonder if any Rand Paul supporters on this forum would change their vote, given his performance in debates.
5. There is still a question of whether Biden will throw his name in for the Dem. nomination, which would make that a more spirited primary than simply Hillary vs. Bernie.
Thoughts?
Perhaps it is time to lock this thread and start a "2016 Presidential Candidate- part 2" thread?
-
When I originally made this poll, I figured "Other" would mostly be John Kasich (more moderate in the Republican field). I left Carly Fiorina off, because I (like many people) thought she was basically a non-issue.
I'm wondering how people who have already voted in the poll might update... (For the more forum-savvy of you, is there a way in the poll to reflect these updates?)
1. Clearly, Scott Walker is gone.
2. Lindsey Graham is basically a non-issue at this point (not just because he's still at the kiddie table, and the most hawkish of conservatives, but also because of poll numbers).
3. Carly Fiorina probably belongs on the poll now, given her polling numbers nationally.
4. I wonder if any Rand Paul supporters on this forum would change their vote, given his performance in debates.
5. There is still a question of whether Biden will throw his name in for the Dem. nomination, which would make that a more spirited primary than simply Hillary vs. Bernie.
Thoughts?
Perhaps it is time to lock this thread and start a "2016 Presidential Candidate- part 2" thread?
Good idea.
If anyone isn't familiar with Larry Lessig's campaign, please have a look. He is focused on one thing - fixing the corrupting influence of money on our political system.
I agree 100% with his contention that the influence of wealth is the ONLY thing that fundamentally matters. Everything else is shaped by that reality.
-
When I originally made this poll, I figured "Other" would mostly be John Kasich (more moderate in the Republican field). I left Carly Fiorina off, because I (like many people) thought she was basically a non-issue.
I'm wondering how people who have already voted in the poll might update... (For the more forum-savvy of you, is there a way in the poll to reflect these updates?)
1. Clearly, Scott Walker is gone.
2. Lindsey Graham is basically a non-issue at this point (not just because he's still at the kiddie table, and the most hawkish of conservatives, but also because of poll numbers).
3. Carly Fiorina probably belongs on the poll now, given her polling numbers nationally.
4. I wonder if any Rand Paul supporters on this forum would change their vote, given his performance in debates.
5. There is still a question of whether Biden will throw his name in for the Dem. nomination, which would make that a more spirited primary than simply Hillary vs. Bernie.
Thoughts?
Perhaps it is time to lock this thread and start a "2016 Presidential Candidate- part 2" thread?
Good idea.
If anyone isn't familiar with Larry Lessig's campaign, please have a look. He is focused on one thing - fixing the corrupting influence of money on our political system.
I agree 100% with his contention that the influence of wealth is the ONLY thing that fundamentally matters. Everything else is shaped by that reality.
I agree with that premise 100%.
My view is that Obama is as progressive and non-coopted as is possible under our current campaign finance system.
One point I would make however, is that it does not follow that under the current system voting Democrat or Republican doesn't matter.
The Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans eviscerated the campaign finance laws with citizens United. Their ideas that money equals speech and that corporations are people who are entitled to unconstrained free-speech/campaign spending, is anti-democratic.
Note that all of the Justices appointed by democrats dissented on that decision.
-
Good idea.
If anyone isn't familiar with Larry Lessig's campaign, please have a look. He is focused on one thing - fixing the corrupting influence of money on our political system.
I agree 100% with his contention that the influence of wealth is the ONLY thing that fundamentally matters. Everything else is shaped by that reality.
I agree with that premise 100%.
My view is that Obama is as progressive and non-coopted as is possible under our current campaign finance system.
One point I would make however, is that it does not follow that under the current system voting Democrat or Republican doesn't matter.
The Supreme Court justices appointed by Republicans eviscerated the campaign finance laws with citizens United. Their ideas that money equals speech and that corporations are people who are entitled to unconstrained free-speech/campaign spending, is anti-democratic.
Note that all of the Justices appointed by democrats dissented on that decision.
I agree. Choosing between the lesser of two evils is still a choice we must make.
I guess the two good thing about Citizens United are that
1) it made it as clear as possible, in case there was ever a doubt, that the Supreme Court, in it's current form, is just another partisan institution, as sad an perverse as that is.
2) it may be bringing us closer to the tipping point where people finally take a stand on the influence of money on politic(ian)s in our experiment with democracy.
[Edit to fix my bad formatting and other silliness]