2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

I though in 2015 the US imported $2.8 Trillion (US) in goods and services and the EU imports $6.5 Trillion (US)

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.CD

In 2014 the EU imported €1.69tn vs. €1.814tn for the US.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Regardless if the government is "federal" or state or county or city, does "smaller... and "less... government" agree with "greater police power?" You don't see the inherent inconsistency in your statements? "Greater police power" is more government "overseeing our daily lives."

You don't see the inherent contradiction in a "smaller government" and "a stronger military?"

You don't see the inherent contradiction between "bring back jobs to America" and "stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages?" Although a very complex issue, to what extent does lower wages make for increasing ROI for American corporations, which may attract those that left to return to "bring back jobs to America," as well as encourage those in America from leaving or outsourcing their labour to China, Mexico, etc.?

Precisely how? I hear this all the time, but rarely does anyone spell out the specifics of what such an overhaul entails and how it would be funded.

You don't see the potential inconsistencies between "better international negotiations" and leaving the only internationally recognized body for the conduct of international negotiations and diplomacy (i.e., UN)?

One of the things that needs to change with education is certainly how it is funded. Many states use models that depend to a greater or lesser extent on property tax revenues. Which obviously then create a self fulfilling cycle of bad schools in poor towns and good schools in the wealthy areas. This needs to change for sure.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Oh, they have to report on the news of it, that is given. But is there righteous indignation that would have been proclaimed by the media had it been a Republican administration? Are any tying Hillary to the historical circumstances of the deal. And have any talked about the fact that the $400 million should have gone to the US families that are owed money from Iran? I doubt it. By Monday I expect is all to be forgotten.

TV stations in the US do not "have" to report on it. They care about one thing only and that is money. Personally I saw extensive coverage on CNN myself where they made no bones about this looking like a pay off to free the 4 American hostiages and went into a fair bit of detail about it. In no way did CNN let the Obama administration off the hook at all.

Suryavarman

Diverting attention away from Trump's incompetence on the campaign trail and potential incompetence in office and back to his incompetence as a business man for a minute:

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/761250478172741632

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Yet our federal, state and local governments fight charter schools at every opportunity

Contrary to your statement the "federal... governments fight charter schools at every opportunity," the federal government has been contributing to the creation and funding of "charter schools" since 1995 SEA grant awards. In 2009 the US Department of Education had created a separate Charter Schools Program division to encourage and fund them.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

TV stations in the US do not "have" to report on it. They care about one thing only and that is money. Personally I saw extensive coverage on CNN myself where they made no bones about this looking like a pay off to free the 4 American hostiages and went into a fair bit of detail about it. In no way did CNN let the Obama administration off the hook at all.

I agree their take was that is was a payment for hostages. Here’s a question regarding all that reporting on the subject. Did the media simply tout the $400 million was legal because it was paid in foreign currency? Or did they have to guts to tell the truth that Obama deliberately dodged the law by using foreign currency from foreign banks and hid the smuggling operation from American people? I doubt it.

Billy86

So, it turns out Trump's own wife may have been working illegally in the US.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

Nude photographs published this week are raising fresh questions about the accuracy of a key aspect of Melania Trump’s biography: her immigration status when she first came to the United States to work as a model.

The racy photos of the would-be first lady, published in the New York Post on Sunday and Monday, inadvertently highlight inconsistencies in the various accounts she has provided over the years. And, immigration experts say, there’s even a slim chance that any years-old misrepresentations to immigration authorities could pose legal problems for her today.

While Trump and her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said she came to the United States legally, her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.

The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.

...

Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.

Instead, Trump’s description of her periodic renewals in Europe are more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa, which typically last only up to six months and do not permit employment.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Yet our federal, state and local governments fight charter schools at every opportunity

In addition to my post (above) regarding "federal..."

Although I do not have time to research all 50 states, the State of California Department of Education appears to exhibit behaviour that is contrary to your statement that "state... governments fight charter schools at every opportunity." Currently Calfornia has the "California Public Charter School Grant Program 2010-2015" to create, fund, and encourage the development of charter schools.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Contrary to your statement the "federal... governments fight charter schools at every opportunity," the federal government has been contributing to the creation and funding of "charter schools" since 1995 SEA grant awards. In 2009 the US Department of Education had created a separate Charter Schools Program division to encourage and fund them.

Black Swan wrote: »

In addition to my post (above) regarding "federal..."

Although I do not have time to research all 50 states, the State of California Department of Education appears to exhibit behaviour that is contrary to your statement that "state... governments fight charter schools at every opportunity." Currently Calfornia has the "California Public Charter School Grant Program 2010-2015" to create, fund, and encourage the development of charter schools.

And there have been endless battles across the nation from allowing school real estate collected taxes be diverted to charter schools.

Being in "that state" you must be familiar with this...

http://watchdog.org/260240/war-school-choice-california/

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I agree their take was that is was a payment for hostages. Here’s a question regarding all that reporting on the subject. Did the media simply tout the $400 million was legal because it was paid in foreign currency? Or did they have to guts to tell the truth that Obama deliberately dodged the law by using foreign currency from foreign banks and hid the smuggling operation from American people? I doubt it.

Well CNN when I was watching yesterday reported that the money was in euro's and Swiss francs so as to avoid said problem. So rest assured your doubts are not needed.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Well CNN when I was watching yesterday reported that the money was in euro's and Swiss francs so as to avoid said problem. So rest assured your doubts are not needed.

You appeared to have proved my point... Protect the president even when we have to report negatively on him.

The use of euro's and francs was a slimy way to get around the purpose of the law. Where is the reporting on that?

B_Wayne

Amerika wrote: »

Truth is, and if we were brutally honest, genocide the only way to save the planet in the long term. Everything else is virtually meaningless.

To use an example, the elimination of CFC gases was a global effort that succeeded in eliminating the damage we were doing to the ozone layer. In fact, now we have indications that it's healing as a result. So yeah, reduce carbon emissions and pursue research in more environmentally friendly, renewable fuels is our most likely way to not feck over civilisation.

Amerika

B_Wayne wrote: »

To use an example, the elimination of CFC gases was a global effort that succeeded in eliminating the damage we were doing to the ozone layer. In fact, now we have indications that it's healing as a result. So yeah, reduce carbon emissions and pursue research in more environmentally friendly, renewable fuels is our most likely way to not feck over civilisation.

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to move to renewable energy. As more and more people demand it, the free market will provide the necessary research and hopefully find a way to make it economically feasible. I am just against the government doing things that will do great economic harm before a good and cost effective alternative is achieved.

But civilization is fecking itself over with population growth that can't be supported with our limited resources.

Billy86

eire4 wrote: »

Well CNN when I was watching yesterday reported that the money was in euro's and Swiss francs so as to avoid said problem. So rest assured your doubts are not needed.

Amerika wrote: »

You appeared to have proved my point... Protect the president even when we have to report negatively on him.

The use of euro's and francs was a slimy way to get around the purpose of the law. Where is the reporting on that?

con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And there have been endless battles across the nation from allowing school real estate collected taxes be diverted to charter schools.

Being in "that state" you must be familiar with this...

http://watchdog.org/260240/war-school-choice-california/

Quoting your "watchdog" source:
"The number of charter schools in California has grown from 177 in 1998 to 1,230 in 2015, and they have set a goal to enroll another million students by 2022 to meet the demand of growing waiting lists." Just looking at the growth numbers and not the subjective opinions, this factual information shows the extraordinary growth of charter schools in California. Furthermore, the California Charter Schools Association reports: "Momentum in California's charter movement builds each year as parents choose the charter public school option in ever greater numbers." Also, 86 new charter schools opened in 2015-16 school year, in the state with the most charter schools and students in the country.


***

Regarding the 2016 presidential nominee, Donald Trump seems to focus on the DARK SIDE** in order to fuel his angry, loud mouthed, 4th grade level, and too often uninformed pulpit polemics to work up his Gustave Le Bon "The Crowd" to a fever pitch, completely ignoring LIGHT SIDE facts of improvements made by Americans with charter schools, etc.

**(Swannie plays Darth Vader "Imperial March" music for candidate Donald Trump)

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

What chance of that? Go on, stick a percentage on it.

A completely unsupported percentage? One chance in ten.

Remember, I'm not claiming that Johnson can beat either candidate on Nov 8th. I'm not even claiming that he could even win more than one state. (Two would be the absolute top in a miraculous outcome). But one state is possible. If he can do that, if he can take enough votes away to prevent either Trump or Clinton from becoming President, then it becomes interesting.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Quoting your "watchdog" source:
"The number of charter schools in California has grown from 177 in 1998 to 1,230 in 2015, and they have set a goal to enroll another million students by 2022 to meet the demand of growing waiting lists." Just looking at the growth numbers and not the subjective opinions, this factual information shows the extraordinary growth of charter schools in California. Furthermore, the California Charter Schools Association reports: "Momentum in California's charter movement builds each year as parents choose the charter public school option in ever greater numbers." Also, 86 new charter schools opened in 2015-16 school year, in the state with the most charter schools and students in the country.

More importantly, also quoting from the source…

Success is meeting heavy opposition from certain groups, one of which is looking to shut down every charter school in the state. Several school districts have encouraged the state to intervene, asking for a more hostile environment for the approval of new charter schools. On a local level, teachers union United Teachers Los Angeles is fighting against charter schools as they lose members attracted to innovative options. Meanwhile the entire charter school authorization process is, in the words of some charter school advocates, “broken.”

School districts have filed three lawsuits in Los Angeles County (with another three in San Diego) over charter schools, in which they claim that schools are in violation of the Charter Schools Act of 1992. Charter school director Jennifer Cauzza said that the schools are operating legally, and this is all about the bottom line for the school districts. “In my opinion, charters have hit the “tipping point” where we’re taking enough students that traditional public schools are beginning to feel the financial effects, and they have been using their reserves to help offset the fiscal impact,” says Cauzza. “Now they are looking at it long term and see that it can have drastic impacts over the next five years if the charter movement continues at this rate.”

But charter schools aren’t the only thing threatening the status quo and, therefore, they’re not the only front in the battle being waged against school choice in California.

The parent trigger law is a way for parents to make significant changes to school governance. If enough parents agree to “pull the trigger” on a poorly performing school, this law gives them the ability to make changes to staff, or even to turn a traditional public school into a charter. The first successful use of the parent trigger was in Adelanto in 2012, a move that was challenged and went all the way to the state Supreme Court. Parent trigger decisions have never been accepted by school districts without bitter fights, but LAUSD has now taken it one step further by simply refusing to accept one earlier this month.

Originally Posted by Black Swan

***

Regarding the 2016 presidential nominee, Donald Trump seems to focus on the DARK SIDE** in order to fuel his angry, loud mouthed, 4th grade level, and too often uninformed pulpit polemics to work up his Gustave Le Bon "The Crowd" to a fever pitch, completely ignoring LIGHT SIDE facts of improvements made by Americans with charter schools, etc.

**(Swannie plays Darth Vader "Imperial March" music for candidate Donald Trump)

There's that "darK" word again. Swannie must have been late to get the democratic talking points.

The Donald does get charter schools...

Let schools compete: charters, vouchers, and magnets

Competition is why I'm very much in favor of school choice. Let schools compete for kids. I guarantee that if you forced schools to get better or close because parents didn't want to enroll their kids there, they would get better. Those schools that weren't good enough to attract students would close, and that's a good thing.

For two decades I've been urging politicians to open the schoolhouse doors and let parents decide which schools are best for their children. Professional educators look to claim that doing so would be the end of good public schools. Better charter or magnet schools would drain the top kids out of that system, or hurt the morale of those left behind. Suddenly, the excellence that comes from competition is being criticized.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Education.htm

Hillary Clinton on the other hand...

Supports public school system: charters but not vouchers

Vouchers: "I'll tell you why I won't support vouchers. Number one, I don't think they're constitutional. But number two, I don't see how you would implement them without having a lot of people get vouchers for schools that would be teaching things antithetical to American values."

Charter schools: "I actually do believe in charter schools."

Public education: "The public school system has been, I believe, second to the Constitution, the most important institution in making America the great country that we have been over the last 200 plus years."

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Education.htm

So apparently she is in favor of charter schools for people like herself who are rich enough to to send their children to good quality schools. "Vouchers" are publicly funded scholarships that students may use for private-school tuition-and the creation of "charter schools"-schools of choice that are funded by public money but operate autonomously, outside the traditional system of public-school governance. In essence... the means for those without the financial means to get a quality education at a charter school.

RobertKK

Julian Assange says he has evidence that Hillary Clinton knowingly armed terrorists.
Assange says he has 1700 emails which show Hillary knew she was arming Jihadi terrorists in Syria which included ISIS.


https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760145201008668672

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Julian Assange...

I see you've moved on from praising Hillary's work as 'one of the best secretaries of state in some time'.

Much like if Clinton supporters were to go after Trump for his illegal emails to international politicias, I'm not so sure that such a tenuous link with so little basis thus far as a means of attacking her business career as crooked, failed and/or lacking morals is exactly the best way to go about it though. Especially considering she is running against someone who actually does have a proven long term, close, buddy-buddy relationship with the mafia, who has gone bankrupt to more than his own (likely highly exaggerated, hence no tax returns) value and who both settled and been found guilty in the courts of racist and discriminatory practices on a number of occasions, on top of currently being on trial for defrauding thousands of American citizens of millions and millions of dollars.

Assange at this point is talking so much without acting that it seems more like bluster than anything else, that he is worried what a Clinton presidency might mean for him.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Assange at this point is talking so much without acting that it seems more like bluster than anything else, that he is worried what a Clinton presidency might mean for him.

Assange has an ego much like trumps and throwing his support behind the donald is making him look like a bit of a prat.

And his last big "revelation" only damaged trump and handed more support to Clinton.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Don’t get me wrong, I would love to move to renewable energy. As more and more people demand it, the free market will provide the necessary research and hopefully find a way to make it economically feasible. I am just against the government doing things that will do great economic harm before a good and cost effective alternative is achieved.

But civilization is fecking itself over with population growth that can't be supported with our limited resources.

The free market only works if each individual element on the chain is profitable. Currently there is lit the to no economic incentive to go green except good will. As polluting does not have a cost involved in it and is cheaper. This means that businesses and individuals can provide a negative effect in society in the way of polluting without paying back to the society they have just taken clean air from.

The free market is based on various entirely untrue assumptions (everybody being entirely logical being one of them). It works to a degree but we need to be ready to stephan it doesn't. There is a reason there is no entirely free market on earth. It can't be treated like a god as it is a concept, not a sentient object or a universal law.

Cost effectiveness is not the most important point here. We need to change how we treat the only planet we have to live on and since the free market shows no sign of providing an incentive we have to before we make things worse. The free market has had its chance and has failed in this regard.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Economic and crime indices are better under democrats? Well crime is dropping, for now, but I believe it is lower in rural areas and higher in urban areas. And now with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ essentially taking over police departments across the nation through oversight we will see a lot less police and a lot more crime in the future.

Economic indices usually point to things being better under a Democrat president than under a Republican I admit. But isn't actually Congress that has more to do with the economy than a president? I would be interested in seeing indices under Congressional rule.

But all that ignores the elephant in the room. There is a populist uprising that had led to the popularity of both Trump and Sanders here. And it has come about by middle-class economic insecurities, stagnant wages, the rich getting richer while the middle-class gets poorer, fear of illegal immigrants stealing jobs - driving down wages - and soaking up welfare money and other taxpayer dollars. All the indices in the world can’t overcome what the voters are experiencing. This administration and both party establishments are viewed as the one to blame. And this is not just in America but Europe also. You can close your eyes and use indices, facts and figures to try and prove that everything is hunky dory, but what the average person is going through and the headlines here and across the pond indicate otherwise. The people believe their current leaders either don’t understand or, worse don’t care.

You just keep moving the goalpost - to Quote Daire O Briain Actual crime is down but the fear of crime is rising - so fcuking what , if people stopped listed to fearmongers like Trump and actually did a bit or research ( which has never been easier ) they would sleep much easier .

As for your point about a revolution driving Trump and Sanders I think everyone agrees with you and it is not just in the USA , it is everywhere in the Western world - the problem is Republican solutions seem only to benefit the top 1% ,

Republicans Like Eisenhower Regan and even Nixon ( before he jumped the shark) would turn in their graves at what the GOP has become .

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

I see you've moved on from praising Hillary's work as 'one of the best secretaries of state in some time'.

Much like if Clinton supporters were to go after Trump for his illegal emails to international politicias, I'm not so sure that such a tenuous link with so little basis thus far as a means of attacking her business career as crooked, failed and/or lacking morals is exactly the best way to go about it though. Especially considering she is running against someone who actually does have a proven long term, close, buddy-buddy relationship with the mafia, who has gone bankrupt to more than his own (likely highly exaggerated, hence no tax returns) value and who both settled and been found guilty in the courts of racist and discriminatory practices on a number of occasions, on top of currently being on trial for defrauding thousands of American citizens of millions and millions of dollars.

Assange at this point is talking so much without acting that it seems more like bluster than anything else, that he is worried what a Clinton presidency might mean for him.

I never thought Hillary was one of the best, one of the worst - yes.

I think Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State got her stint right in that role, especially with the surge in Iraq, plus no new wars.
Pity Obama let everything get worse in Iraq and near everywhere else.

Assange has already caused several top level members of the DNC to resign.

InTheTrees

All the news channels today are talking about whether or not Trump is going to bow out.

It seems possible. Unlikely maybe but it could happen, presumably to make way for Ryan? Or Cruz?

wonderfullife

InTheTrees wrote: »

All the news channels today are talking about whether or not Trump is going to bow out.

It seems possible. Unlikely maybe but it could happen, presumably to make way for Ryan? Or Cruz?

Actually i'd say the complete opposite. It's looking very likely he exits and perhaps sooner than many think.

The latest Fox News Poll already showing a 10-point lead for Clinton at the polls.

Making a reasonable assumption that Hilary destroys him on almost every issue during the 1st televised debate, that lead could grow huge.

Trumps campaign is already on choppy waters financially.

I just can't see him convincing people to part with millions to fight a losing cause.

Trump is an ego-maniac. He'd rather drop out of the race allowing Clinton to run unopposed, than to lose in an embarrassing fashion.

He won't be bothered if that means no Republican left standing.

He has a pretty primitive exit strategy already lined up: 1. Election was rigged so i dropped out 2. Republican Party betrayed me so i dropped out etc

Easy nonsensical excuses, swift exit, back to reality tv.

Igotadose

InTheTrees wrote: »

All the news channels today are talking about whether or not Trump is going to bow out.

It seems possible. Unlikely maybe but it could happen, presumably to make way for Ryan? Or Cruz?

Strongly doubt it will happen. Trump's too much of an egotist for this and it'd be the GOP officially throwing in the towel in this fight.

Brian?

wonderfullife wrote: »

Actually i'd say the complete opposite. It's looking very likely he exits and perhaps sooner than many think.

The latest Fox News Poll already showing a 10-point lead for Clinton at the polls.

Making a reasonable assumption that Hilary destroys him on almost every issue during the 1st televised debate, that lead could grow huge.

Trumps campaign is already on choppy waters financially.

I just can't see him convincing people to part with millions to fight a losing cause.

Trump is an ego-maniac. He'd rather drop out of the race allowing Clinton to run unopposed, than to lose in an embarrassing fashion.

He won't be bothered if that means no Republican left standing.

He has a pretty primitive exit strategy already lined up: 1. Election was rigged so i dropped out 2. Republican Party betrayed me so i dropped out etc

Easy nonsensical excuses, swift exit, back to reality tv.

I can't see it. He's too much of a narcissist to pull out. He loved the attention too much.

Black Swan

wonderfullife wrote: »

Making a reasonable assumption that Hilary destroys him on almost every issue during the 1st televised debate, that lead could grow huge.

If Donald Trump's Republican primary debate performance is repeated during the 3 presidential debates, he will attempt to steer the content to his advantage, avoid indepth policy discussions, make frequent personal attacks, make things up as he goes along that are factually incorrect, while constantly interrupting and talking-over Hillary Clinton. If she does not call him on this, and stop him from controlling content and air time, she will lose the debates.

ebbsy

Or maybe he is delighted seeing himself in the news 24/7. News channels analysing his every word.

Free advertising, nobody talking about Hillary, giving the people what they want.

He might just pull it off.

Zubeneschamali

ebbsy wrote: »

He might just pull it off.

He already has. When he entered the race, he hadn't a notion of being elected President. Why would he care now that he's going to lose in a landslide? It was never about getting elected - it was about being the most famous person in the world.