2016 Presidential Candidate

[Hall11235]

.... 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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[forummm]

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

[beltim]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[forummm]

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.

[beltim]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[beltim]

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.

[forummm]

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).

[Jeremy E.]

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.

[MDM]

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.  On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims.

[forummm]

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.

[Glenstache]

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.  On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims.

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.

[Jeremy E.]

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.  On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims.

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.

[MDM]

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.  On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims.

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.

[Cressida]

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/

[MDM]

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

[nereo]

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 running under the Republican party.  Anywhere between 10 and 18 of those are considered "real" candidates.

[Cressida]

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.

[MDM]

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, ....

[Kris]

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.  On the other hand, it's more than the 3% PP claims.

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.

[Cressida]

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.

[MDM]

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.

[forummm]

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/

[Financial.Velociraptor]

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...

[Cressida]

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.

[nereo]

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? ;-)

[sol]

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. 

[Cressida]

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.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

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.

[forummm]

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.

[Kriegsspiel]

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.

[Jack]

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).

[Jack]

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?

[forummm]

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.

[nereo]

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.

[Bob W]

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.   

[Mississippi Mudstache]

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.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

For your enjoyment:

[MoonShadow]

For your enjoyment:

I actually laughed out loud.

[MoonShadow]

. 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.

[Bob W]

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.   

[Kris]

. 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.

[forummm]

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.

[Tyson]

. 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.

[beltim]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[MoonShadow]

. 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."