Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2016, 05:40:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 672
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is "basket of deplorables" Hillary's 47% moment? on: September 10, 2016, 05:31:31 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / 2 Muslim women, babies attacked in New York on: September 10, 2016, 01:14:08 am
Quote
New York (CNN)A woman yelling anti-Muslim sentiment allegedly attacked two Muslim women as they pushed their children in strollers in New York, authorities said.

Emirjeta Xhelili, 32, allegedly tried to rip the hijab from the women's heads during the attack in Brooklyn on Thursday.

She struck the women in the face and body, and repeatedly shouted, "this is the United States of America, you're not supposed to be different from us," court documents allege.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/10/us/brooklyn-muslim-women-attacked/index.html
3  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: What's more important: democracy, or liberalism/secularism? on: September 09, 2016, 07:41:52 pm
Maybe. If that's the case, apologies.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump goes on Russia-state-owned RT to slam the US media on: September 09, 2016, 07:36:35 pm
Trump makes me freaking sick. The guy supports our enemies and people that mistreat their own people.

Sometime around 1966 liberal hero MLK Jr called the US Government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the World".  Things have only gotten worse since then as the US operates in every crevice of the globe.

And as for mistreats own people, the US locks more people in prison than PRC or DPRK or Russia.  US police harass blacks for a living.  US weapons kill labor organizers in Columbia, partisans (or not) in Syria.  Israel uses US weapons to mass-murder persons in the Gaza Strip without fear of retaliation.  Saudi Arabia lynches homosexuals thanks to US support.

Power and evil go together.  The US is civilized in that we respect a form of the Magna Carta idea, that the nobles have access to due process.  We postmodern nobles here in the US number in the tens of millions.  If you can buy a lawyer's labor, you might be able to buy justice.

But most of America is one or more of hungry, incarcerated, beaten on, has untreated PTSD from Iraq or Afghanistan, is in debt, treated to nothing but harassment from birth, stressed out so their employers can enjoy "labor flexibility".

We of the political class(the mostly White, mostly upper-income/wealth 15-30% of people that have bother voting repeatedly) pretend it isn't happening, and simply don't bother to learn what the US actually is doing Worldwide.  Why do we need military presence in 135 countries?  Why are we conducting airstrikes in half-a-dozen countries in the Middle East? For "defense"?  You all buy this nonsense?

On the other hand, the US has done some good in the world. For example, tens of millions of people in Africa have access to cheap AIDS medications thanks to some US charities. A child born with HIV has only a 50% chance of making it to his second birthday. In some countries, up to 30% of pregnant women have HIV. Retrovirals can reduce the chances of mother to child HIV transmission by 75%.
5  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: What's more important: democracy, or liberalism/secularism? on: September 09, 2016, 07:30:18 pm
The second option -I have no desire, for instance, of having the People's Republic of China become a democracy if they are going to make a sham of it the way the Russians have done under Putin (or Turkey under Erdogan of late).  I'd rather they take the slow, deliberate approach so that when they do eventually become a democracy, it would actually have staying power. 

Oh no, I would take Putin, Trump or Erdogan over Xi Jinping any day. Compared to him, they all look like Thomas Paine. That being said, I do worry that Trump would get us into a war with China given how bellicose he is.
6  General Politics / International General Discussion / Actually, Mr. Trump, the Chinese Have Come to Respect Obama on: September 09, 2016, 07:07:39 pm
Quote
When Obama did get elected, many of those same Chinese experts on American affairs declared he wouldn’t last; a few predicted he’d be assassinated within months of taking office. Obama not only proved them wrong, but he also re-focused U.S. policy energies on the so-called pivot or “rebalancing” towards Asia. While it may not have achieved all that the White House intended, America and its allies have pushed back against Chinese muscle-flexing in the Pacific, leading to setbacks in Beijing’s territorial and diplomatic ambitions.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/barack-obama-asia-pivot-214218
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Predict MN with no Trump on the ballot on: September 09, 2016, 06:14:01 pm
The same thing happened in the primary here in DC when Bernie's people tried to buy their way onto the ballot instead of collecting signatures, but submitted their payment a day or two late. The city just adjusted the rules to put him on the ballot, he got crushed by 55 points, end of story.

Everyone knows Trump deserves to be on the ballot. I don't really see the upside to this, as it could incite a backlash. Let him on the ballot. Just make the argument that if he runs the country the way he runs his campaign, we'll be in big trouble.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Favorite Trump hire? on: September 09, 2016, 05:57:14 pm
Discuss.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Facebook co-founder donates $20 million to defeat Trump on: September 09, 2016, 01:48:48 pm
Overturn Citizens United! Smash the plutocracy

Seriously why are you supporting Trump? He has literally hired the head of Citizens of United.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: M. Daniels wants Johnson in the debates even if he isn't at 15% on: September 09, 2016, 12:43:40 pm
I'm obviously biased but it seems once again, the bar for people running against Clinton is lowered till they fall over it.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: thoughts and musings on: September 08, 2016, 10:59:14 am
I know what you're talking about freepcrusher. I think you're talking about transactional politics, the type of politics that is like a business - you give me X in exchange for Y, is that right? The type that old political machines used to do. It wasn't about being liberal or conservative but just using government to get your piece of the pie.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why are libertarians associated with the right? on: September 08, 2016, 12:02:19 am
I think the bigger question is, "why is the right moving away from economic libertarianism?" Because it's being discredited. The tea party was the last gasp. It's a losing ideology and they know it. So they've latched onto purely cultural warriorism now, hoping to replicate the social wedges between the races that have worked well for the far right in Europe, here in America. If they can turn American politics into whites vs. minorities (and other marginalized), it gives them an advantage for at least another generation (at which point they can morph again). Democracy ensures that creating a cleavage where the majority are, by definition, on your side, provides a structural advantage. The right wing is morphing for the sake of its own survival.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If you're a Clinton supporter, how would you describe your mood about the polls? on: September 08, 2016, 12:01:34 am
The primary isn't the same as the GE. Just because Republican primary voters didn't feel shame supporting Trump instead of other Republicans like Cruz or Rubio, it doesn't mean swing voters won't feel shame in supporting Trump instead of Clinton or Johnson. These are two entirely different populations of people, in entirely two different social environments.

The live phone / online poll distinction is plenty of evidence for a Shy Trump effect. The same distinction was seen during the lead up to Brexit polling.

The substantive reasons have to do with the kind of campaign Clinton is running: She's arguing that Trump is temperamentally unfit to be president, suggesting that he shouldn't even seriously be considered. This is an appeal to people's higher, more mature natures. Another example is her ad showing Trump mocking the disabled reporter and cutting to the reactions of kids. Clearly the implication is - if we elect adults him president, how can we tell our kids to have good manners?

The Clinton conceit is that there is some higher adult consciousness that we will ultimately fall back on, but the problem is that adults are really just overgrown children. We have more of a veneer of civility, but emotionally we're not any different. This, incidentally, explains the willingness of many people to believe things that are patently false. In human nature, emotions trump facts. The acceptance of a fact is predicated on the emotional receptivity to an adverse one, and that's not always there. Liberals always profess shock and claim that being educated/reading books will "cure ignorance", but that's not the problem. The problem is human nature. This is where conservatives are right.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who won the Commander in Chief forum? on: September 07, 2016, 11:06:49 pm
Reading only the transcript, I think both of them did well generally, but Trump stumbled when he started talking about "taking the oil." He seemed to almost suggest having troops on the ground to harvest the oil. Him claiming to have been against the Iraq war may have been a mistake, but only if he's called out for lying and people go and check the record. As for Clinton, Lauer came out with some very tough questions right out of the gate, and she acquitted herself just about as well as she could have. Her answers were also more detailed than Trump's.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Trump +2 in CNN/ORC National Poll on: September 07, 2016, 10:38:42 pm
past two D's have pulled the economy out from recession into (in one case, the best times this country saw in a generation; in the other case, the best that could have been expected given the massive structural obstructions he faced).

I long for a day when Bill Clinton's term is reassessed from the perspective of what he actually did as opposed to what happened during his term.

Clinton had a recession end just before he took office, and another begin two months after he left office. The length of the expansion was due to forces decades in the making, especially in the area of technology, as well as the pursuit of regulatory and tax changes from multiple Presidents from both parties during periods when times were much tougher.

Deregulating airlines and railroads is one thing though. And the presumption on a bipartisan basis in the 1990's that expanding such deregulation to all areas and all sectors was misguided, especially with regards to a sector such as finance in an era when so much of the economy was becoming heavily reliant on debt both and the consumer and corporate level. Of course these occurred in his second term when the 1990's economy was reaching its peak levels of performance. But even so, the  legislation with the most impact that Clinton signed were the vast deregulation bills Bill Clinton signed into law in 1997 and 1999.  Of course I highly doubt Dole or some other Republican would have vetoed those bills. The only one at the time who might have done so would have either been Ross Perot or Pat Buchanan and neither of them were going to be President.

Second to that would have to be NAFTA, which benefited certain areas, benefited the overall GDP and certainly was to Wall Street's liking, but there is no arguing that it left communities across America high and dry and nothing meaningful was done to mitigate the damage to the tax base for schools nor to the employment situation in many of these communities.
 

It makes sense politically to attach oneself to the 1990's from the perspective of a Democrat, but dig a little deeper and you have to square a near austerity based approach (raising taxes to balance the budget and "boost the economy") with the purported economic philosophy that Democrats adhere to.

The simple fact of the matter is that the 1991 recession was over by the time Clinton took office. The campaign exaggerated its depth and length to weigh on Bush's population and facilitate their acquisition of power. The 1991 recession was not the worse recession since the Great Depression. The only ones who thought so were a bunch of white collar yuppies who for the first time felt the brunt of a recession (economy shifts to service based industries, those previously unharmed sectors now get hit by recessions, who knew?), and one Donald J. Trump who saw his property values tank, nearly bankrupting him.

Clinton's 1993 budget was not designed to be a stimulus, it was designed to be a deficit reduction plan sacrificing economic growth to achieve said goal. A middle class tax cut was promised down the road, but never delivered. The reason for this approach was because the economy was no longer in recession, and was growing at a fast clip as it rebounded from the recession and the budget deficit was viewed as a bigger problem.

In hindsight, we probably would all be better off today, if Clinton ate deficits throughout his whole term and instead pumped a massive infusion of infrastructure spending down the pipeline. The current level of debt might ironically be lower and the economy stronger, most likely.

From that perspective, Bush 43 was poor man for the job who was on top of that dealt a very losing hand, which arguably he played the worst way possible between the War in Iraq and trying to us a debt fueled housing bubble to lead an economic expansion.

Obama was a dealt an even worse hand in some respects but he played it much better than Bush did and the end result has been somewhat positive for him economically. That being said, completing flipping the 2012 narrative that he was unpopular on the economy and strong on foreign policy, his approach to the world has been nothing but a disastrous legacy project, which has weakened our position in many areas and allowed the threat of radical islam to morph into a far more dangerous form, but that is a topic for a different time.

Bill Clinton governed this country the way that Donald Trump ran his businesses. Stealing credit for other people's work by putting his name all over it, and shafting others with the price for his mistakes and poor decisions. If there is any justice at all, the Clintons will go down in history as the greatest political con artists in American history.

I don't think what you're saying is that controversial any more. Bill's legacy came under heavy attack in the primaries on multiple fronts.

But the criticism of Bill Clinton is that he was too deregulatory and austerian, and should have spent more on infrastructure, which hardly makes it a problem for Democrats or the left, since that's where it's coming from. Except strictly as a matter of personal judgement against him. It's like Nixon being attacked for imposing wage and price controls. The actual economically progressive initiatives Bill passed are left unscathed:
- Family and Medical Leave
- Raising the top tax bracket
- Expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit
- Raising the minimum wage

And it shouldn't be a worry especially since Hillary is campaigning to the left of her husband on pretty much all of the issues mentioned mentioned, including financial regulation, and her party, (which never supported NAFTA in the first place at the Congressional level), has clearly moved to the left as well.

And while Hillary did publicly support Bill's economic policies in the 1990s (what First Lady would campaign against her own husband's policies?) she has a consistent record on being to his left. She was by accounts in the opposite wing than his Rubinite advisors during the two years she was actually involved in WH policy. She ran to the left of Obama on economic policy in 2008. Not to mention the policies she's proposing in her current campaign.

Meanwhile, Trump is still proposing massive tax breaks for his fellow real estate developers.

Again, the Democrats should own the economy question. That they are losing it to Trump is malpractice.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Romney all but endorses Johnson on: September 07, 2016, 04:35:10 pm
Romney's not running for office any more. He doesn't care what people say. I bet there are a more like him who are in the closet.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: CT/NH/VT/MA/NJ/ME/RI-Emerson on: September 07, 2016, 10:48:55 am
Anyone who believes that NJ, RI, or ME-2 will be close or in Trump column will probably end up on White People Mourning Trump. I'm taking applications for those who make ridiculous posts online expressing shock about Trump losing.

Anyone who believes that Trump has no chance with certain Obama Democrats, of who we have examples on this forum, supporting him will probably end up on Minority People Mourning Hillary. I'm taking applications for those who make ridiculous posts online expressing shock that Trump is viewed as favorably as Hillary.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL-PPP: Trump +1 on: September 07, 2016, 10:43:21 am
Wow, Hillary is just not putting this away. Should have gone with Biden.

She'll put the devil away on election day. I really need to reserve White People Mourning Trump on Tumblr, because White People Mourning Romney was hilarious in 2012.

This sh**t is getting old, it's stuff like this that opened the door to Trump in the first place. Would Minority People Mourning Hillary be seen as funny, or racist? We need unity in this country.

Oh, be quiet. Your act is old.

Actually, my silence / complicity during the SJW wave 2013-15 was the act. I was afraid of being called out by "progressives" if I didn't tow the line. Huge mistake.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: FL-PPP: Trump +1 on: September 07, 2016, 10:30:14 am
Wow, Hillary is just not putting this away. Should have gone with Biden.

She'll put the devil away on election day. I really need to reserve White People Mourning Trump on Tumblr, because White People Mourning Romney was hilarious in 2012.

This sh**t is getting old, it's stuff like this that opened the door to Trump in the first place. Would Minority People Mourning Hillary be seen as funny, or racist? We need unity in this country.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump Foundation Violated Tax Laws, Paid IRS Penalty on: September 06, 2016, 11:54:09 pm
Or perhaps the media understands that this will be another example of the law and consequences only applying to Republicans.  And probably best not promoted too prominently.

This is absurd. Kathleen Kane? Chaka Fattah? Corrine Brown? John Edwards? Law enforcement is not in a conspiracy against either party.
21  General Politics / Economics / Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income on: September 06, 2016, 11:33:38 pm
Yes, if you throw in work.

Basically what I would support is, the government subsidizing certain jobs, such as cashier jobs, that normally would be turned over to machines. Instead, the government contributes, say, $18 an hour, the company contributes $9 an hour, and what you are left with is a very decent wage for a very 'lowly' job (cashier). This way, there is not only income, but good income, and you don't have people sitting around on the couch getting fat and watching reality TV; or doing some BS government make-work, like picking litter off the freeway. You have people working actual jobs making a living wage.

I think caregiving for children and adults who cannot live independently (and similar forms of formerly uncompensated labor) are a better, or at least more promising, example, not to mention one that doesn't require the mediation of a third-party employee. There are already some programs that fill this niche, and I can imagine it becoming very common as our population ages.

But any work requirement invites complications and would make the program more difficult to administer while also introducing all sorts of political battles (and likely abuses by large employers) as they seek to influence these requirements to their maximum benefit. The advantage of compensated caregiving is that it doesn't necessarily require much administrative work or rules enforcement, e.g. you have a child or adult living with you for whom you care, you receive a check for it as long as you're not abusive or neglectful.

Doesn't that already happen with single moms and welfare?
22  General Politics / Economics / Re: Opinion of Universal Basic Income on: September 06, 2016, 11:20:11 pm
Yes, if you throw in work.

Basically what I would support is, the government subsidizing certain jobs, such as cashier jobs, that normally would be turned over to machines. Instead, the government contributes, say, $18 an hour, the company contributes $9 an hour, and what you are left with is a very decent wage for a very 'lowly' job (cashier). This way, there is not only income, but good income, and you don't have people sitting around on the couch getting fat and watching reality TV; or doing some BS government make-work, like picking litter off the freeway. You have people working actual jobs making a living wage.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why is Trump doing bad in the Utah election? on: September 06, 2016, 11:13:24 pm
Utah is an unusually civilized place. They are ranked one of the happiest and least obese states in the nation. Those privileged bastards, eh?
24  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Is Putin trying to prop up Europe's Far-Right ? on: September 06, 2016, 10:49:29 pm
Russia is just returning to its status as the most conservative European power, which it has occupied most of its entire history (notably including assisting fight the 1848 uprisings) except for the strange 20th century aberration when it was far left. Ex KGB man Putin is probably the most moderate leader that is possible in Russia right now; if not him, an Orbanite would almost certainly be in charge.

As to why some of the far left love him; I think it's a mix of Cold War nostalgia and reflexive anti-Americanism. Like the far right, the far left prefer an authoritarian strongman over the capitalist decadence represented by the Anglosphere.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Trump +2 in CNN/ORC National Poll on: September 06, 2016, 10:34:25 pm
My only point is, the last D president who was bad for the economy was Jimmy Carter, and he actually had a stellar job creation record. If the party had a shred of competence, they would own this issue.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 672


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines