2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

And the media castigated him for it. All I want is equal treatment from the media, regardless if a person has a (R) or (D) (or now (I)) behind their name.

People (including myself and the liberal media) laugh and scoff when they see Biden's gags. People do not laugh when they see Donald Trump unfairly attack a war veteran and racially attack immigrants. That's the difference.

It's one thing to say and do silly things like Biden, but some of Trump's acts have been disgusting. That's not to say I've laughed at his other gags though.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Republican candidates will fail to address income inequality point blank. How can you expect low earners to close the gap on top earners when top earners own the businesses who'll record big profits under a GOP President, especially when they'll pay less taxes and low earners will still earn a pittance? It's just not possible to expect the rich to pay low earners more money when they're not forced to.

Who are the majority of ultimate buyers of the “rich” business owners good and services? The average person, isn’t it? What good does it do these “rich” business owners if people don’t have the money to purchase their good and services? It makes sense that business owners would hire more people if the government didn’t make it cost ineffective through high taxes and suppressive regulations.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Who are the majority of ultimate buyers of the “rich” business owners good and services? The average person, isn’t it? What good does it do these “rich” business owners if people don’t have the money to purchase their good and services? It makes sense that business owners would hire more people if the government didn’t make it cost ineffective through high taxes and suppressive regulations.

It's not about jobs. America doesn't have a high unemployment rate, and most of its poorest citizens have full time jobs. It's about how much those workers are paid. What good is a job when you still can barely afford the necessities even if you work 40hrs a week?

I know you hate comparing America to other countries for some reason, but at least try and explain to me why the gap between poor and rich in Ireland is much, much smaller than that of America's, when Ireland's unemployment rate is 4.2% higher?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

In 2014, 30% of voters were Democrats, 26% were Republicans, and 43% were Independents. I mostly agree with what you state regarding the majority of registered Democrats and Republicans, but it doesn’t fit the majority voters in America which are registered as pseudo "Independent." What do you think Adams would think of the fact that the majority of voters (I like to say 'party," but it is better stated the "non party") don't even bother to put up good candidates?

I've heard this argument many times before, and it's not new material. For one thing, the "independents" are independent of parties by definition. Furthermore, the independents are not homogeneous as you imply here, to where THEY could propose a candidate to represent THEM, rather they are heterogeneously independent, and may have eclectic political positions that span the whole political continuum defying over-simplistic labeling into some mutually exclusive categorisation that has any practical meaning or utility. But in saying this as an independent, my argument becomes circumspect and humourous, in that an independent cannot speak for others that are in fact independent.

A better question would be, if the Democrats or Republicans are so grand, and offer meaningful and practical platform solutions to the nation's domestic and international problems, why do independents not flock to join them? Or does the all too often single digit unfavourability ratings of Congress (controlled by the 2-party system) suggest that independents and others are dissatisfied with both parties, and would not join them accordingly?

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's not about jobs. America doesn't have a high unemployment rate, and most of its poorest citizens have full time jobs. It's about how much those workers are paid. What good is a job when you still can barely afford the necessities even if you work 40hrs a week?

I know you hate comparing America to other countries for some reason, but at least try and explain to me why the gap between poor and rich in Ireland is much, much smaller than that of America's, when Ireland's unemployment rate is 4.2% higher?

I agree the income inequality in the US is a problem. And allowing countries to get away with bringing goods into America at low duties and tariffs, compared to what the US must go through to export, and allowing countries to sell good and services at a loss into the US, helps to exasperate the problem. There is no fast and easy fix, I admit. But raising the minimum wage and the only economic policy to address the issue will not help IMO.

Isn’t income inequality also rising in European countries? And isn’t it most felt by the countries experiencing large amounts of immigrants coming in? Well, welcome to what America has been going through.

What would happen to Ireland’s unemployment if the US government would start to penalize companies who operate in Ireland in order to escape taxes, thus making it more attractive for US companies to bring better paying jobs back into the US? I’m sure the Democrats would love that idea, would you?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I've heard this argument many times before, and it's not new material. For one thing, the "independents" are independent of parties by definition. Furthermore, the independents are not homogeneous as you imply here, to where THEY could propose a candidate to represent THEM, rather they are heterogeneously independent, and may have eclectic political positions that span the whole political continuum defying over-simplistic labeling into some mutually exclusive categorisation that has any practical meaning or utility. But in saying this as an independent, my argument becomes circumspect and humourous, in that an independent cannot speak for others that are in fact independent.

A better question would be, if the Democrats or Republicans are so grand, and offer meaningful and practical platform solutions to the nation's domestic and international problems, why do independents not flock to join them? Or does the all too often single digit unfavourability ratings of Congress (controlled by the 2-party system) suggest that independents and others are dissatisfied with both parties, and would not join them accordingly?

I consider most “Independents” as political wimps. They only claim to be so, so as not to be labeled part of the big two. They usually cannot participate in primaries, even though in the end they end up voting for one of the big two anyway. I know of at least 14 other parties that ran candidates for president back in 2012. You’d think that if someone who claimed to be Independent were truly independent, those 14 other parties would have gotten a much higher percentage of votes. Independents truly could be a force in America, but choose not to be, and seem content in their entire political atmosphere on simply bashing one or both parties.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I agree the income inequality in the US is a problem. And allowing countries to get away with bringing goods into America at low duties and tariffs, compared to what the US must go through to export, and allowing countries to sell good and services at a loss into the US, helps to exasperate the problem. There is not fast and easy fix, I admit. But raising the minimum wage and the only economic policy to address the issue will not help IMO.

Isn’t income inequality also rising in European countries? And isn’t it most felt by the countries experiencing large amounts of immigrants coming in? Well, welcome to what America has been going through.

What would happen to Ireland’s unemployment if the US government would start to penalize companies who operate in Ireland in order to escape taxes, thus making it more attractive for US companies to bring better paying jobs into the US? I’m sure the Democrats would love that idea, would you?

So now you're blaming free trade. Well that's funny, because a lot of the GOP candidates claim to be in favour of free trade and have supported deals with Asia, so you're going to have a bit of a problem with him if he gets the nomination.

The immigrants who have arrived are mostly undocumented, similar to that of America's illegals. I haven't seen statistics showing inequality to be increasing, but at the moment EU countries are not as bad for income inequality as America.

Not all the US multi-nationals located in Ireland are here for tax purposes; they're here to expand their operations this side of the Atlantic. While some (like Apple) have dodged taxes here, I don't think our economy would implode if the govt. clamped down on them.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

What would happen to Ireland’s unemployment if the US government would start to penalize companies who operate in Ireland in order to escape taxes, thus making it more attractive for US companies to bring better paying jobs into the US? I’m sure the Democrats would love that idea, would you?

It's not clear what you are discussing here. There are divisions of several US corporations operating in Ireland, and those US corporations benefit from the free flow of trade within the EU, given that Ireland is EU and USA is not. This is a symbiotic relationship that benefits both US corporations and Ireland. It's doubtful that it would be in the best interests of the US corporations and their lobbies that use Ireland to compete with EU headquartered corporations to withdraw, and unlikely that either the Democrats or Republicans will put forth legislation to restrict this US-Irish corporate relationship, given that these US corporations and their lobbies fund PACs for both parties. US corporations and their major stockholders want ROI (Return On Investment) for any monies they spend on PACs; i.e., they get the best politicians that money can buy to represent their interests, regardless of party.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So now you're blaming free trade. Well that's funny, because a lot of the GOP candidates claim to be in favour of free trade and have supported deals with Asia, so you're going to have a bit of a problem with him if he gets the nomination.

I have a lot of problems with some of the GOP candidates, and yes, when it comes down to it I will be voting on the lesser of evils, I admit.

The immigrants who have arrived are mostly undocumented, similar to that of America's illegals. I haven't seen statistics showing inequality to be increasing, but at the moment EU countries are not as bad for income inequality as America.

I believe income inequality is growing in many EU countries. And it doesn't happen overnight, it takes time.

Not all the US multi-nationals located in Ireland are here for tax purposes; they're here to expand their operations this side of the Atlantic. While some (like Apple) have dodged taxes here, I don't think our economy would implode if the govt. clamped down on them.

I'm sure it wouldn't implode Ireland's economy, but it would hurt your economy. And that would lead to more income inequality, wouldn't it?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

It's not clear what you are discussing here. There are divisions of several US corporations operating in Ireland, and those US corporations benefit from the free flow of trade within the EU, given that Ireland is EU and USA is not. This is a symbiotic relationship that benefits both US corporations and Ireland. It's doubtful that it would be in the best interests of the US corporations and their lobbies that use Ireland to compete with EU headquartered corporations to withdraw, and unlikely that either the Democrats or Republicans will put forth legislation to restrict this US-Irish corporate relationship, given that these US corporations and their lobbies fund PACs for both parties. US corporations and their major stockholders want ROI (Return On Investment) for any monies they spend on PACs; i.e., they get the best politicians that money can buy to represent their interests, regardless of party.

Ireland is considered a tax haven by many US companies because of its 12.5% corporate tax rate. There really is no other reason to relocate operations there, over Europe proper if, a company’s sole purpose was to expand business into the EU market.

Overheal

Sure has nothing to do with a technically-abled, English-speaking workforce.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

I'm sure it wouldn't implode Ireland's economy, but it would hurt your economy. And that would lead to more income inequality, wouldn't it?

Companies like Apple being stopped from using our favourable tax policy will not result in mass cuts of jobs, like companies like Intel or HP being forced to leave would, but as I said earlier, such companies are not here just for tax purposes, they want to expand to the EU market.

As I've said before, it's not about job creation, it's about how valuable those jobs are to those who have them. You neatly ignored this part of my post earlier, so I'm going to repeat it in the hope that you'll address it.:

It's not about jobs. America doesn't have a high unemployment rate, and most of its poorest citizens have full time jobs. It's about how much those workers are paid. What good is a job when you still can barely afford the necessities even if you work 40hrs a week?

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Companies like Apple being stopped from using our favourable tax policy will not result in mass cuts of jobs, like companies like Intel or HP being forced to leave would, but as I said earlier, such companies are not here just for tax purposes, they want to expand to the EU market.

As I've said before, it's not about job creation, it's about how valuable those jobs are to those who have them. You neatly ignored this part of my post earlier, so I'm going to repeat it in the hope that you'll address it.:

It's not about jobs. America doesn't have a high unemployment rate, and most of its poorest citizens have full time jobs. It's about how much those workers are paid. What good is a job when you still can barely afford the necessities even if you work 40hrs a week?

Even Bernie Sanders says ‘real’ unemployment rate is actually 10.5 percent, DOUBLE the official rate.

And I don’t know what you are going on about. I addressed your points. I said I considered income inequality a problem in the US. I also stated that I believe lower taxes, lesser regulations, and protections against unfair international business practices would help to reduce that inequality, and higher minimum wages would exacerbate the problem. Just because you may not like my retorts, doesn’t allow you to get away with stating that I ignore your points... Thank you very much.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I consider most “Independents” as political wimps.

Does name calling strengthen your argument?

Amerika wrote: »

They only claim to be so, so as not to be labeled part of the big two.

You now speak for the independents? You don't see the contradiction? (I had a disclaimer in my earlier post)

Amerika wrote: »

They usually cannot participate in primaries,

This is changing at state levels, but it's difficult to wrestle this historic and monopolistic-like control from the 2-party system.

Amerika wrote: »

...even though in the end they end up voting for one of the big two anyway.

Vote for the candidate based upon their political position and qualifications, and NOT the party they are affiliated with? What a novel idea in America. Then again, sometimes people vote for the "lesser of weevils" (borrowing a phrase from Master and Commander).

Amerika wrote: »

I know of at least 14 other parties that ran candidates for president back in 2012. You’d think that if someone who claimed to be Independent were truly independent, those 14 other parties would have gotten a much higher percentage of votes.

You don't see the contradictions in your statement? Furthermore, other tiny US parties are token in votes and power when compared to a parliamentary form of government across the pond (not that parliaments are ideal). Of course there are temporary exceptions, like when a terribly unqualified wrestler won the governorship of MN out from under the two warring Democrats and Republicans. Now that was humourous indeed!

Amerika wrote: »

Independents truly could be a force in America, but choose not to be...

Then why worry about them during the past and forthcoming elections, if your party is so strongly representative of the American voter interests ranging from poor to rich? But both parties are worried, as they are losing membership per your own statistics given earlier. Explain that.

Amerika wrote: »

and seem content in their entire political atmosphere

They don't MARCH to the beat of a distant drummer? Your left, your left, your left... right... left. Column right, MARCH!?

Amerika wrote: »

on simply bashing one or both parties.

Yes, only independents bash a party, while Democrats and Republicans are bash-free in their political statements.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Ireland is considered a tax haven by many US companies because of its 12.5% corporate tax rate. There really is no other reason to relocate operations there, over Europe proper if, a company’s sole purpose was to expand business into the EU market.

Here we agree to disagree. There are significant advantages besides taxation for US Corporations to have manufacturing facilities based in Ireland, when trading with other EU countries, and against EU headquartered corporate competitors. EU free flow trade, compliance with directives, standards, etc., plus Ireland has bent over backward to attract and retain US corporate employment, and has an English speaking, highly educated and trained workforce. Plus "Kiss me I'm Irish" ancestral identification by millions of Americans for PR reasons. But neither the Democrats or Republicans are going to go against these US corporate interests and lobbies, so the discussion is moot for BOTH parties (in reality), who BOTH receive US corporate PAC monies.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Does name calling strengthen your argument?

I believe that's a pretty good term for them. Do you have a more PC correct term that describes how I, and many others like me, view them?

You now speak for the independents? You don't see the contradiction? (I had a disclaimer in my earlier post)

No I don't speak for them, but that is a proper observation from my outlook.

This is changing at state levels, but it's difficult to wrestle this historic and monopolistic-like control from the 2-party system.

Yes it is changing, but it remains the majority at the current time.

Vote for the candidate based upon their political position and qualifications, and NOT the party they are affiliated with? What a novel idea in America. Then again, sometimes people vote for the "lesser of weevils" (borrowing a phrase from Master and Commander).

I don't know what you are saying here. In a general election, I can vote for any candidate from any party, or even write one in (as I have done before) if I don't like any of the candidates, even with being a registered Republican. With Independents is seems like they are saying... "Oh just put someone up there, anyone, for me to choose from." And voting for the lesser of weevils is very American.

You don't see the contradictions in your statement? Furthermore, other tiny US parties are token in votes and power when compared to a parliamentary form of government across the pond (not that parliaments are ideal). Of course there are temporary exceptions, like when a terribly unqualified wrestler won the governorship of MN out from under the two warring Democrats and Republicans. Now that was humourous indeed!

No, if there's anyone who can aid to the rise of those tiny US parties, it's the Independents.

Then why worry about them during the past and forthcoming elections, if your party is so strongly representative of the American voter interests ranging from poor to rich? But both parties are worried, as they are losing membership per your own statistics given earlier. Explain that.

Because it's the Independents that will ultimately choose who our next president will be. And with every day it looks like it might become a real election rather than a Clinton coronation.

They don't MARCH to the beat of a distant drummer? Your left, your left, your left... right... left. Column right, MARCH!?

The don't seem to march to any drum, or care to see what variety of drums might be out there.

Yes, only independents bash a party, while Democrats and Republicans are bash-free in their political statements.

No Dems and Reps aren't bash-free, but Independents seem to be equal opportunity bashers. :P

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Even Bernie Sanders says ‘real’ unemployment rate is actually 10.5 percent, DOUBLE the official rate.

And I don’t know what you are going on about. I addressed your points. I said I considered income inequality a problem in the US. I also stated that I believe lower taxes, lesser regulations, and protections against unfair international business practices would help to reduce that inequality, and higher minimum wages would exacerbate the problem. Just because you may not like my retorts, doesn’t allow you to get away with stating that I ignore your points... Thank you very much.

By that he means there are workers who have part time hours but need/want full-time hours and can't get it. Even then, 10.5% unemployment is not terrible, and is actually close to our level. You cannot use this as the reason why inequality exists.

Bernie has also consistently advocated for workers who cannot afford a comfortable living while on 7$/hour even with full-time hours. How do you respond to this?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Here we agree to disagree. There are significant advantages besides taxation for US Corporations to have manufacturing facilities based in Ireland, when trading with other EU countries, and against EU headquartered corporate competitors. EU free flow trade, compliance with directives, standards, etc., plus Ireland has bent over backward to attract and retain US corporate employment, and has an English speaking, highly educated and trained workforce. Plus "Kiss me I'm Irish" ancestral identification by millions of Americans for PR reasons. But neither the Democrats or Republicans are going to go against these US corporate interests and lobbies, so the discussion is moot for BOTH parties (in reality), who BOTH receive US corporate PAC monies.

With regard to manufacturing, location and transportation are key factors. It doesn't make sense to have a manufacturing operation on an island, which is farthest most from the EU. I've dealt with a lot of Europeans, and very many of them do have a working understanding of English, even though it's not their native language. And not every position in every companies would need to understand English. Heck, there are a lot of people here in the US workforce that speak Spanish only.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I believe that's a pretty good term for them. Do you have a more PC correct term that describes how I, and many others like me, view them?

Methinks this attitude exemplifies one of the reasons the parties are not reaching the independents and gaining their registrations.

But you didn't answer my earlier question. If the Republicans or Democrats are so grand, and strongly represent the interests of voters from poor to rich, why are they losing membership to independents? Why?

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

By that he means there are workers who have part time hours but need/want full-time hours and can't get it. Even then, 10.5% unemployment is not terrible, and is actually close to our level. You cannot use this as the reason why inequality exists.

Bernie has also consistently advocated for workers who cannot afford a comfortable living while on 7$/hour even with full-time hours. How do you respond to this?

Not very many people earn minimum wage or less (because they fell under one of several exemptions such as tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others). And they only represent 4.3% of the nation’s 75.9 million hourly-paid workers and 2.6% of all wage and salary workers. So raising the minimum wage will not fix countries income inequality problem, and will probably just hurt the very people they wish to help as that group would most likely be the ones affected with layoffs and decreased hours as them employment would be considered cost ineffective.

IMO more job creation, less regulations, more job training, and traditional education is the way out of earning minimum wage working full time.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Not very many people earn minimum wage or less (because they fell under one of several exemptions such as tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others). And they only represent 4.3% of the nation’s 75.9 million hourly-paid workers and 2.6% of all wage and salary workers. So raising the minimum wage will not fix countries income inequality problem, and will probably just hurt the very people they wish to help as that group would most likely be the ones affected with layoffs and decreased hours as them employment would be considered cost ineffective.

IMO more job creation, less regulations, more job training, and traditional education is the way out of earning minimum wage working full time.

But what is there to encourage companies to pay their low-earning workers more?

Someone will always have to flip burgers at McDonalds and considering the unemployment rate is low full employment is impossible to reach, there's not much increased job creation can do for poor people.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks this attitude exemplifies one of the reasons the parties are not reaching the independents and gaining their registrations.

But you didn't answer my earlier question. If the Republicans or Democrats are so grand, and strongly represent the interests of voters from poor to rich, why are they losing membership to independents? Why?

I can only speak for myself, and for some I've spoken to about why they switched to Independent, but I think the number one factor is people are tired of the constant harassment by the political parties looking for money. I was considering switching to Independent myself because of the harassment.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

But what is there to encourage companies to pay their low-earning workers more?

Someone will always have to flip burgers at McDonalds and considering the unemployment rate is low full employment is impossible to reach, there's not much increased job creation can do for poor people.

I think the fear of reprisal for enacting lower taxes or lesser regulations... and not paying higher wages will shame companies into paying more and out of fear of public reprisals. Otherwise there is no need. There will always be people like students and some that only wish part time employment that will be willing to work for minimum wage. Job creation and a more qualified and educated workforce will cause the most reason for higher wages.

BuilderPlumber

This campaign thus far seems to be about 2 political dynasties and a selection of madmen one seemingly more insane than the next. I just hope neither Trump or Cruz get the job. Both seem highly dangerous, war mongering, racist guys who seem mentally unstable. They would be far worse than the Bush administration of 2001-2009.

By comparison, both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton seem much preferable even though I am not a fan of either (or of political dynasties in general). The Democrats appear to have the more moderate, level headed people but the Republicans have to deal with the far right, religious extremist, neo-KKK undertones that seem to come up for air every now and again through the likes of Sarah Palin and Trump. There are moderate and decent Republicans too but for some reason, they do not get the nominations and yet another Bush is the best on offer here.

Amerika

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This campaign thus far seems to be about 2 political dynasties and a selection of madmen one seemingly more insane than the next. I just hope neither Trump or Cruz get the job. Both seem highly dangerous, war mongering, racist guys who seem mentally unstable. They would be far worse than the Bush administration of 2001-2009.

By comparison, both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton seem much preferable even though I am not a fan of either (or of political dynasties in general). The Democrats appear to have the more moderate, level headed people but the Republicans have to deal with the far right, religious extremist, neo-KKK undertones that seem to come up for air every now and again through the likes of Sarah Palin and Trump. There are moderate and decent Republicans too but for some reason, they do not get the nominations and yet another Bush is the best on offer here.

When you say “moderate and decent Republicans,” it is important to note that means “Democrat-Like” to many here when used in the context you provided. Why vote for a Democrat like Republican when you can just vote for a Democrat? And those type of GOP candidates never seem to win the general election, with the most recent being Romney and McCain.

BuilderPlumber

Amerika wrote: »

When you say “moderate and decent Republicans,” it is important to note that means “Democrat-Like” to many here when used in the context you provided. Why vote for a Democrat like Republican when you can just vote for a Democrat? And those type of GOP candidates never seem to win the general election, with the most recent being Romney and McCain.

Generally, there is not much of a difference between the two parties and both have been the more moderate and more hardline party in turns. Perhaps, Kennedy set the standard for a new type of US president: younger, more modern and charismatic. Clinton and Obama also followed this role model.

BUT what about US policies? We think of the recent Republican admins and we think Iraq war and all that as well as religious hardliners. But let's look a little at recent history:

A Democrat president, Johnson, escalated the Vietnam war (which had its origins in the Truman, Ike and Kennedy periods) to a fullscale and disasterous US led war. It was the Iraq of its time.

Bush 1 may have initially fell out with and bombed Saddam but Clinton carried on the same policies and similar policies on Milosevic era Serbia. A second America v Iraq war was on the cards for a long time and nearly happened in 1998 actually. I do not think that Al Gore would have acted any differently than Bush2 if he was president the time of 9/11. Clinton was the first to bomb the Taliban. But by September 1998, it seemed as if Iran would do the job for them after a near war between Iran and Taliban Afghanistan (Iran decided instead to up the support for the Northern Alliance rather than go to war directly). But 9/11 was much more serious than the bombing of an African embassy or the killing of low ranking Iranian officials in Herat. 9/11 was so serious it demanded an action from the victim country and any president would have to act the same as Bush2 did here.

What is less sure is if Gore would have invaded Iraq in 2003. We will never know this but the quest for revenge for 9/11 and the most likely candidate was incorrectly assumed to be Saddam by many Americans.

The most celebrated president of recent decades is often Reagan, who presided over a hardline first term and a moderate second term. His moderate policies are what we remember most, and improved US/USSR relations meant an end to all the proxy wars in Afghanistan, Central America, etc. that both powers fought. Bush1 though got the fruit of the seeds that Reagan sowed and the transformation of East Europe and the fall of the Berlin wall. But Bush1 was not able to capitalise on this and lost to Clinton who carried on Bush1's policies.

Bush2 of course wanted to leave a legacy akin to Reagan and his father. If they could bring democracy to East Europe, surely Bush2 could do it for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria? He wanted his place in the history books but instead his overenthusiasm killed this. We often see Bush2 as a war monger and forget that Clinton also was involved in a good number of wars and bombing campaigns in Serbia, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan and, again, Iraq. Indeed, every US president from Roosevelt onwards has been involved in a war with the exceptions of Carter and Ford. So, we have a Democrat and Republican not involved in a war and we have lots of both parties involved.

KingBrian2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

But 9/11 was much more serious than the bombing of an African embassy or the killing of low ranking Iranian officials in Herat. 9/11 was so serious it demanded an action from the victim country and any president would have to act the same as Bush2 did here.

Did anyone not bother to look into that incident and make sure it did not happen again. The Cold War escalated in the 80's and plenty of civilian targets were hit. Many passenger aircrafts were destroyed by the superpowers. South Koreans & Cubans were made the victims. Numerous hijackings took place in France and Italy by terror organisations.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

With regard to manufacturing, location and transportation are key factors. It doesn't make sense to have a manufacturing operation on an island, which is farthest most from the EU. I've dealt with a lot of Europeans, and very many of them do have a working understanding of English, even though it's not their native language. And not every position in every companies would need to understand English. Heck, there are a lot of people here in the US workforce that speak Spanish only.

When speaking to Intel, specifically, and to Business Studies in general, Ireland is singled out for its technically-educated, English speaking workforce within a stone's throw of the mainland and a competitive tax rate. It's a combination of factors. I'm sure you will find a lot would depend on the good: a microprocessor is lightweight and has a high revenue-to-density, for example, versus a machined 10 pound part produced in mass quantity, which seems to be an industry suited for China.

Amerika wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, and for some I've spoken to about why they switched to Independent, but I think the number one factor is people are tired of the constant harassment by the political parties looking for money. I was considering switching to Independent myself because of the harassment.

And some of us just never affiliated with a party to begin with, knowing that the 2-party system is a sham.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

When speaking to Intel, specifically, and to Business Studies in general, Ireland is singled out for its technically-educated, English speaking workforce within a stone's throw of the mainland and a competitive tax rate. It's a combination of factors. I'm sure you will find a lot would depend on the good: a microprocessor is lightweight and has a high revenue-to-density, for example, versus a machined 10 pound part produced in mass quantity, which seems to be an industry suited for China.

With regards to Intel, doesn't the US have a more than enough level of technically-educated English speaking workforce to supply their needs? And as you noted, location is not a major factor in shipping microprocessors. So it seems it simply does come to tax benefits.

And some of us just never affiliated with a party to begin with, knowing that the 2-party system is a sham.

True, but I believe the question was in regards to Democrats and Republicans moving to Independents.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

With regards to Intel, doesn't the US have a more than enough level of technically-educated English speaking workforce to supply their needs?

Evidently all factors considered, Intel chose to place one of their most important fabs outside of Dublin.