2016 Presidential Candidate

[forummm]

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.

[Chris22]

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?

[MoonShadow]

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.

[EricP]

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.

[Kris]

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

[gillstone]

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.

[sol]

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.

[Glenstache]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[forummm]

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.

[sol]

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.

[Seppia]

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"

[Bob W]

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.   

[MoonShadow]

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. 

[Kris]

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.

[Kris]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[boy_bye]

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.

[forummm]

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.

[Bob W]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[sol]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[sol]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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?

[sol]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

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.

[forummm]

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.

[Bob W]

Wow 10 hours long!  Now that is impressive.  The other candidates will have a hard time competing with that!

[regulator]

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...

[forummm]

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.

[brooklynguy]

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.

[forummm]

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.

[GuitarStv]

I'd also like to hear one of Sol's stories.

[gillstone]

It looks like we have achieved agreement in one area...

Sol, tell us a story

pretty please

[regulator]

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.

[regulator]

It looks like we have achieved agreement in one area...

Sol, tell us a story

pretty please

Perhaps in a separate thread.

[Kris]

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).

[Vertical Mode]

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.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[nereo]

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, 

[forummm]

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.

[MoonShadow]

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.

[Bob W]

I liked john k.  Trump underwhelming.

[Midwest]

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.

[nereo]

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...

[Bob W]

The scariest part for me was all the praise the lord crap.   I didn't see everything.  Did Trump praise Jesus?