2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

lochderg

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If I was a GOP voter I would go for Mitt.

I know he is a 2-time loser.
But I couldn't give a poop about that.
If I thought a candidate was the better candidate I'd continue voting for them.

I genuinely think he's a good man who would do a good job.
He's smart, articulate & moderate.

Either Mitt or Hill-dog, America could do worse.

...and wants to give more wealth to the super -rich which would leak out of their wallets drip down the cracks in their arses,wind its way over the tracks in their underpants,gently caress their scrotums as it dribbles benignly down white hairy spindly legs out through the cracks in their toenails and joyously come unto our bosums-are they not merciful?

Amerika

lochderg wrote: »

Perhaps the 'Irish Catholic' will once again endorse Mitt Romney and his intention to hand excessive grotesque wealth to the oligarchs-

I'm curious... How did Mitt Romney intend to do that? And how did Barack Obama not do that?

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see it. The mid-west union representation doesn’t appear to be much different than that of the rest of the country.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm

Personally, I think what Walker has done to turn around the dismal finances of his state (WI) will carry a much higher weight with voters than the negative connotation “union busting,” and might actually play to his advantage as the majority of people see their funds decrease in order to pay for exorbitant wages and benefits.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/391760/scott-walkers-sterling-record-limited-government-deroy-murdock

Of course. Do you think a Republican will win the next Presidential election?

eire4 wrote: »

How exactly has Walker turned around Wisconsin's finances? According to the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia Wisconsin is now 49th of 50 states in economic outlook. Since Walker took office Wisconsin has gone from 11th to 44th in job creation. His new budget offers a tax cut that mostly benefits the rich and sucks public money into private schools in the form of vouchers. Wages in Wisconsin are also falling at twice the national level are some examples that suggest Wisconsin is not doing well financially under Walker.

I'm sure somehow all those things you list are actually good in a way.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. Do you think a Republican will win the next Presidential election?

I didn’t think so in the past. But as more and more stories emerge of Clinton shenanigans, as in today’s New York Times article regarding the Clinton’s supposed influence peddling and pay-to-play shopping, I see the GOP chances increasing exponentially. For the life of me I can't figure out why the Democrats aren't pushing another candidate in the primary, in the event Clinton's campaign crashes and burns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

[...] I see the GOP chances increasing exponentially.

Precisely how do probabilities, which are strictly bounded above by one, increase "exponentially"?

Perhaps the word you're looking for is "lots".

</MathsPolice>

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Precisely how do probabilities, which are strictly bounded above by one, increase "exponentially"?

Perhaps the word you're looking for is "lots".

</MathsPolice>

Perhaps. But going from no chance in hell, to we might win this freakin’ thing after the Benghazi/Email scandals, to OMG... it might just be ours to lose with the Clinton Foundation illegalities talk, kind of feels exponential -- politically speaking, that is.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

[...]kind of feels exponential -- politically speaking, that is.

ITYM "big".

In the absence of a definable "political sense of exponential".

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

ITYM "big".

In the absence of a definable "political sense of exponential".

Fine, if you need to be pedantic and all over it, Lots... Big... whatever.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

I didn’t think so in the past. But as more and more stories emerge of Clinton shenanigans, as in today’s New York Times article regarding the Clinton’s supposed influence peddling and pay-to-play shopping, I see the GOP chances increasing exponentially. For the life of me I can't figure out why the Democrats aren't pushing another candidate in the primary, in the event Clinton's campaign crashes and burns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1

Roughly where would you set the probability? I seem to remember you thinking Romney had a shot last time around until pretty late in the campaign.

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

Roughly where would you set the probability? I seem to remember you thinking Romney had a shot last time around until pretty late in the campaign.

I’m at 50/50 today with the NY Times Clinton Foundation revelations this morning. Yeah, I thought Romney had a shot until it became apparent the media was merely playing scribe to the Obama campaign, and put ideology ahead of journalistic integrity. The media isn’t fawning all over Hillary as of yet, but that could change once the GOP contender is chosen.

If it comes down to Jeb and Hillary as the two choices, we might just see a third party contender actually get a real shot at becoming POTUS. Perhaps Rand Paul running as a Libertarian or Independent.

Amerika

Amerika wrote: »

If it comes down to Jeb and Hillary as the two choices, we might just see a third party contender actually get a real shot at becoming POTUS. Perhaps Rand Paul running as a Libertarian or Independent.

You believe that a Libertarian 3rd-party candidate could win over Hilary?

Amerika

Deleted User wrote: »

You believe that a Libertarian 3rd-party candidate could win over Hilary?

I couldn’t say for sure. But as I watch her missteps mount and her support decrease, I think the chances of a Libertarian possible win increase along with it, especially if there are a number on the right who wouldn’t want to vote for Jeb Bush.

There are some real concerns surrounding her Clinton Foundation. And deleting 30,000 emails just makes the trust issue on here part even worse. Nobody believes they were all about yoga and such. If Hillary refuses to address the concerns over the Foundation in a way that is believable, and keeps doing what is happening right now with her surrogates attaching everyone who questions her integrity, as a member of the right wing conspiracy, evildoers, sexists, or just plain idiots, her popularity will slide even more and in turn give a 3rd party candidate better chances.

PopePalpatine

The only way I could ever see a 3rd party win control over either the White House or at least one House of Congress would be if the USA moved to either PR or a second run-off round for an election.

Manach

Offhand, commentators like the late Robert Dahl mention democracies come in two main camps. Those that maximise the electoral choice of the voter (PR) and those that funnel the choice between two blocks (US college system). The advantage of the former is more respresentation at the cost of less stable governments (ie Italian governments) while the latter has less representative but more stable (ie elections at fixed times). It would take a major systematic overhaul to change thus the US setup and there would be the mentioned tradeoffs.

alaimacerc

Manach wrote: »

Those that maximise the electoral choice of the voter (PR) and those that funnel the choice between two blocks (US college system).

It doesn't have much to do with the Electoral College, per se. You could reform the EC without changing FPTP or vice versa. And indeed, not all US elections use FPTP -- some use two-round runoff, as PP just alluded to.

lochderg

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... What does that then make Democrats?

.

it makes them right of centre,corupted by Wall St. but unlike the GOP who are frigging certifiable -electable

lochderg

Black Swan wrote: »

ObamaCare essentially copied RomneyCare, except that ObamaCare applied to the nation, and RomneyCare only affected the State of Massachusetts when Romney was Governor. I dislike both. Both plans force citizens to enroll in private-sector-for-profit corporate medical insurance plans, both punish their citizens if they don't enroll, and both are dysfunctional.

And no comment on the alternative?-excrutiatingly expensive,60million Americans not covered?-these same creatures are now holding talks to worm their way into the NHS -the Tories like the Republicans holding profit above all else, will welcome them in with open wallets.

lochderg

Amerika wrote: »

Newsflash people... Sarah Palin isn't running. Sorry to disappoint.

she's been commited

lochderg

Amerika wrote: »

I don't watch Fox News (although I do occasionally catch O'Reilly's "Talking Point" segment which opens his show). When I go the the TV for political information, it's usually MSNBC. I do hear some negativity about Cruz, but usually it is from those who have no real clue about him or have never actually heard his positions... and just parrot the musings of the rabid left.

The problem for Ted Cruz is that he himself gives us clues all the time-he speaks regularly to audiences and TV & radio with the full knowledge that it will make its way on to social media.We hear what he says again and again, we get a full sense of his values and priorities again and again so how can you possibly say that we have no clue about him and that it's because we're rabidly left -wing?

lochderg

Amerika wrote: »

I'm curious... How did Mitt Romney intend to do that? And how did Barack Obama not do that?

more tax breaks
"Romney’s plan, in reality, would provide the very richest Americans a $264,000 tax break. It also maintains current tax rates on investments that are otherwise set to expire at the end of the year, and it eliminates the estate tax, paid by only the richest one-quarter of one percent of Americans."Think Progress.-Obama hasn't really done anything for the middle-classes-too scared of the right.
quotes and articles don't really matter -we all know that the prevailing wind among the Republicans is to maintain the wealth gap

AbusesToilets

As a voter, I find myself increasingly discouraged with each election cycle. The media plays up the importance of the Presidential office, but as seen by the current status quo between Obama and Congress, power mostly resides in the Congressional branch. Given level of corporate investment in electioneering, I have little faith in fair governance from either party, though the current thrust of the Republican party towards a more conservative stance on issues like abortion and social services has me leaning to the Democrats.

A Clinton administration is likely to face levels of obstruction from Republicans that would exceed even those that Obama currently faces. What hope then of any substantial legislative efforts to tackle issues? Is a Republican Executive going to focus on attacking Obama's legislative activities, while pursuing the same economic policies that led to the market collapse and increasing the social gulf that separates the rich from everyone else?

Amerika

lochderg wrote: »

more tax breaks
"Romney’s plan, in reality, would provide the very richest Americans a $264,000 tax break. It also maintains current tax rates on investments that are otherwise set to expire at the end of the year, and it eliminates the estate tax, paid by only the richest one-quarter of one percent of Americans."Think Progress.-Obama hasn't really done anything for the middle-classes-too scared of the right.
quotes and articles don't really matter -we all know that the prevailing wind among the Republicans is to maintain the wealth gap

I recall Romney stating he would make all of the 2001-2008 tax cuts permanent, and allow some of the 2009-2010 tax cuts to expire as scheduled. He'd cut tax rates on ordinary income by 20 percent across the board. He would work to repeal the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. He’d make capital gains, dividends, and interest tax free for households making $200,000 or less, and tax capital gains and dividends at the current 15 percent rate for those making more than $200,000.

From the looks of it, everyone would have benefited.

AbusesToilets

Amerika wrote: »

I recall Romney stating he would make all of the 2001-2008 tax cuts permanent, and allow some of the 2009-2010 tax cuts to expire as scheduled. He'd cut tax rates on ordinary income by 20 percent across the board. He would work to repeal the estate tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. He’d make capital gains, dividends, and interest tax free for households making $200,000 or less, and tax capital gains and dividends at the current 15 percent rate for those making more than $200,000.

From the looks of it, everyone would have benefited.

You mean the unfunded Bush era tax cuts that dumped hundreds of billions of dollars onto the national debt annually? Great idea all together.

Amerika

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You mean the unfunded Bush era tax cuts that dumped hundreds of billions of dollars onto the national debt annually? Great idea all together.

If the reductions in federal income would have avoided adding to the deficit through faster economic growth as planned, then it makes sense. How has the deficit done under Obama’s tutelage? Seems to me Romney couldn't have done any worse than Obama has in that arena.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

If the reductions in federal income would have avoided adding to the deficit through faster economic growth as planned, then it makes sense.

Whee, and right back to trickle-down voodoo. Perhaps the most debunked idea in all of political history. Ford and Bush #1 called it, what, forty years ago? Back when the Republicans had a "moderate wing" that wasn't such an offence to the core meaning of words.

How has the deficit done under Obama’s tutelage? Seems to me Romney couldn't have done any worse than Obama has in that arena.

Seems to me you need to imagine a little harder.

Which branch of the government is responsible for initiating money bills, again? Which of Obama's proposals to reduce the deficit have they assented to?

AbusesToilets

Amerika wrote: »

If the reductions in federal income would have avoided adding to the deficit through faster economic growth as planned, then it makes sense. How has the deficit done under Obama’s tutelage? Seems to me Romney couldn't have done any worse than Obama has in that arena.

That is pure fantasy and has been shown as such time and again. As has been pointed out, Congress is responsible (lol) for the budget, a duty they have failed to discharge repeatedly. Even with that, the deficit has decreased by half since Obama took office.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/

Amerika

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That is pure fantasy and has been shown as such time and again. As has been pointed out, Congress is responsible (lol) for the budget, a duty they have failed to discharge repeatedly. Even with that, the deficit has decreased by half since Obama took office.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/

Yipee. Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far. The US federal gov’t revenues amount to around $3 Trillion. So now we expect our debt to only run about $500 billion this year (if we’re lucky) instead of $1.2 Trillion average it was over his first 5 years. Be still my heart.

AbusesToilets

Amerika wrote: »

Yipee. Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far. The US federal gov’t revenues amount to around $3 Trillion. So now we expect our debt to only run about $500 billion this year (if we’re lucky) instead of $1.2 Trillion average it was over his first 5 years. Be still my heart.

With respect, while I don't buy into the constant fear mongering that surrounds talk of the national debt, it is relevant when you addressed it as a point to show a failure of Obama. Congress is responsible for spending, and has failed in its duties consistently over the last number of years.

The tax cuts you mentioned previously contributed significantly to increasing the deficit and were disgracefully irresponsible.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

Obama’s deficits [...] President Obama [...] added by him [...]

You're not doing so well on the constitutional homework I set you. Here's a hint: Origination Clause.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Obama’s deficits aren’t as bad as they have been. Oh happy days. Under President Obama our debt is now $18 Trillion, $6.2 Trillion added by him so far.

The US Congress legislates spending, not Obama. Obama can propose a budget, but cannot pass it. What one party has controlled the US House for years, its powerful Speaker position, and now also controls the US Senate?