2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Is that the same plan being flown around Washington? That piece was introduced to congress in 2013 and its not apparent from that link or looking up that bill what it's final projected cost would be.

The one being flown around in Washington is very similar to Sanders. From the Daily Kos…

Mr. Sanders hasn’t released a detailed plan, but a similar proposal in Congress, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.), would require $15 trillion in federal spending over 10 years, on top of existing federal health spending, according to an analysis of the plan by Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Mr. Conyers’s office referred questions about the plan to Mr. Friedman.

Mr. Gunnels, the Sanders aide, said the campaign hasn’t worked out all details on his plan—for instance, his version might allow each state to run its own single-payer system. But he said the $15 trillion figure was a fair estimate.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/15/1421316/-WSJ-Sanders-Medicare-for-All-pricetag-is-fair-estimate-of-15-Trillion#

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

So none of FDR's actions contributed to ending the Cold War? And the 90s was Reagan's economy, not Clinton's?

FDR died during WWII when The Soviet Union was still an ally to the US. The Cold War didn't start until after WWII ended. And the majority of the 90's economy is due to the Reagan economic policies, not Clintons.

Overheal

Wow I was thinking of JFK actually. Yikes.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

First and foremost, his actions caused an end to the Cold War: His tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending restraint helped cause the economic boom that lasted for 20 years. He achieved peace through strength. Achieved nuclear weapons cuts which eliminated and entire class of nuclear weapons and laid the framework for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. And restored optimism for the country. Pretty damn impressive if you ask me and reason to be number 3.

The deregulation and tax cuts also helped cause the crash in '08. Without his deregulation and tax cuts for the rich (which Bill continued to be fair) Wall St. would never have been able to run riot and eventually cause the global economy to collapse.

Also, what do you mean by 'domestic spending restraint'? A smaller Govt. perhaps? Because the size of the Federal Govt. actually increased under his reign.

And what about the National Debt? He added almost $2trillion to it during his reign; a 186% increase.

And the illegal aliens who Conservatives seem to hate so much? Well he gave amnesty to 3 million of them.

Oh, and don't forget those rotten Islamic terrorists either, because Reagan helped build them up in order to stop Russia in Afghanistan too.

But yeah, he was most definitely the 3rd best President. Ever.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Absolutely. FDR's actions prolonged the Great Depression... although his lying to the American people and pretending he was going to keep us out of the war (all the while building up the military in order to enter the war) was a pretty smart idea. What major accomplishments did Kennedy really achieve other than almost getting us into WWIII? Jefferson is in my top 5 presidents, but his banning of foreign trade moved him below Reagan.

You know none of your criticism of FDR is really true, but it's pointless to rebut it because it's a waste of time. JFK is a reach, but I believe he was a far superior president to Reagan mainly because I believe Reagan was so bad.

As I believe the above, let's forget my picks and go back to yours. Why is Reagan top 3?

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

Just commenting on the obvious.

My top three (in order) are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

Two out of three ain't bad. George Washington didn't have a party...so, you should probably vote for somebody other than a Democrat or Republican. Of course, the person you vote for won't win but you'll at least follow the line of Washington.

Why do you like Lincoln?...who do you think as a candidate is most like Lincoln (the man that signed the homestead agreement and 'freed' the slaves...I know who I think is most like him..Bernie Sanders)

Ronald Reagan has done more damage to the United States than any President in it's history, in my opinion. He signed away a lot of power to corporate interests for a short term gain. He is directly responsible for many of the shortcomings in American society today.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

First and foremost, his actions caused an end to the Cold War: His tax cuts, deregulation, and domestic spending restraint helped cause the economic boom that lasted for 20 years. He achieved peace through strength. Achieved nuclear weapons cuts which eliminated and entire class of nuclear weapons and laid the framework for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. And restored optimism for the country. Pretty damn impressive if you ask me and reason to be number 3.

You're right, he restored optimism.

His deregulation began the destruction of the middle class and drove a massive wedge into income disparity we're seeing the results of now.

He did not end the the Cold War. The soviets imploded from within.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You know none of your criticism of FDR is really true, but it's pointless to rebut it because it's a waste of time. JFK is a reach, but I believe he was a far superior president to Reagan mainly because I believe Reagan was so bad.

As I believe the above, let's forget my picks and go back to yours. Why is Reagan top 3?

Of course my criticism of FDR is valid and true. And I already answered the Reagan question... which you will find in post #1740.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Of course my criticism of FDR is valid and true. And I already answered the Reagan question... which you will find in post #1740.

I saw your response too late. You've had mine.

FDR was arguably the greatest president by any objective measure. This nonsense about him extending the depression is revisionit clap trap started by Milton Friedman (to the best of my knowledge Friedman was the earliest big name critic).

Black Swan

Reviewing above summary of Sanders positions. Although anecdotal and not empirical, I was just talking with a rep for a Democrat PAC, and he said voters should be cautious about Sanders political platform in terms of practicality. While there is a segment of voters that may agree with some of his positions, the likelihood of any passing the US Senate (Senate bills authored or endorsed by him) or US House is highly unlikely.

Manach

If there is popular attitude to favour change, of some sort, would the senatorial races held at the same reflect the presidential victor: ie if party X wins the executive office then the momementum would carry over to them picking up votes to win extra senate seats. So could this overturn the legislative issue that Black Swan mentioned?

Wompa1

Black Swan wrote: »

Reviewing above summary of Sanders positions. Although anecdotal and not empirical, I was just talking with a rep for a Democrat PAC, and he said voters should be cautious about Sanders political platform in terms of practicality. While there is a segment of voters that may agree with some of his positions, the likelihood of any passing the US Senate (Senate bills authored or endorsed by him) or US House is highly unlikely.

Could be said for any candidate that is outside of the status quo, though. It's still better to get somebody in that will push the envelope.

Hillary will cow tow to her Corporate Sponsors.

Trump, I'm not sure of. People say he can't be bought because he's a billionaire...but he's a businessman. He's a whealer dealer. He's not going to make deals to better the American people, if it hurts his own personal interests. He also appears to be a sociopath....the last guy that was deemed to be mentally unstable caught a bullet in Dallas.

Warren Buffet said he likes a lot of what Bernie Sanders says but still backs Hillary. Larry Page, Bill Gates and other prominent business giants have echoed some similar statements to Sanders in terms of how American society needs to adapt.

What many people seem to be overlooking is the fact we're heading into an era of automation. It's a revolution comparable only to the Industrial revolution.

Uber have ordered hundreds of thousands of automated cars. What if every taxi driver is out of the job? What next? Trucks...there's already tests being performed for this. What next? Buses...towing companies? Will we need as many working Emergency Services if accidents are cut down to a tiny percentage?

How many jobs will be wiped by that alone?

What next? How about personal assistants, human resources and secretaries? There's already systems like ZDocs replacing two of the three. There's Identity systems being brought in by many big companies to replace HR...or at least some of the HR personnel...leaving one or two for soft skills required.

Some surgeries are now being performed by robots. Many Americans love talking about how McDonalds are trialling automated tellers (which ironically is proving difficult to get right due to the demanding nature of the American customer, they won't everything their own special way which is hard to cater for). Grocery stores have self service checkout....

You name it and pretty much everything can be automated except maybe soft skills...when you actually need human interaction. Like counseling. I'm working in IT...my job right now is to automate myself out of a job...it's a task of constantly getting into new areas to keep ahead of that Automation fire.

What will America look like when most workers are unemployed?...pretty bleak. We're not equipped to deal with a society like that. Not even close. Page and others are calling for a 3 day work week. Three 12 hour shifts with overlapping workers. So you can employ twice as many people in those few jobs that will still be required.

Black Swan

Wompa1 wrote: »

Could be said for any candidate that is outside of the status quo, though. It's still better to get somebody in that will push the envelope.

But are they electable from a practical standpoint? If not, then the vote is cast away often to benefit the other party in their dysfunctional 2-party system. All too often the informed segment of voters (many are uninformed) are compelled to vote for the "Lesser of Two Weevils" (borrowed from Master and Commander). Personally I do not find any of the current candidates for president 2016 worthy of office, be they Democrats or Republicans (including quasi-independent Sanders, who normally votes with Democrats).

Wompa1 wrote: »

Hillary will cow tow to her Corporate Sponsors.

In all fairness, ALL the currently declared candidates for president will do so, both Democrats and Republicans. Just examine the declared candidate positions of PACs (a device to circumvent campaign contribution limitations my corporations and the tiny obscenely rich percentage of voters).

Wompa1 wrote: »

Trump, I'm not sure of. People say he can't be bought because he's a billionaire...but he's a businessman. He's a whealer dealer. He's not going to make deals to better the American people, if it hurts his own personal interests.

This is trumping Trump political spin. Trump will do what is best for Trump, as he always has in the past. There will be PACs that favour Trump, but of course Trump can deny that he controls them, just like all the other Democrat and Republican candidates claim. These PACs side-step campaign finance reform, using the excuse that Americans have a constitutional right to organise and spend monies to further their interests, and if that be a candidate, so be it.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Warren Buffet said he likes a lot of what Bernie Sanders says but still backs Hillary. Larry Page, Bill Gates and other prominent business giants have echoed some similar statements to Sanders in terms of how American society needs to adapt.

Buffet is practical.

Wompa1 wrote: »

What many people seem to be overlooking is the fact we're heading into an era of automation. It's a revolution comparable only to the Industrial revolution.

Agree. And it's just beginning, and will expand geometrically in an upward curve.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Some surgeries are now being performed by robots.

Robotics is the future.

Wompa1 wrote: »

Page and others are calling for a 3 day work week. Three 12 hour shifts with overlapping workers. So you can employ twice as many people in those few jobs that will still be required.

This is a misleading and spurious band aid, and does not address the massive changes needed in employment focused education, skills, and experiences to adapt and evolve to our rapidly expanding science and technology driven future.

Magnate

In his reddit AMA, Bernie responding to a question about automation.

My Question
Mr. Sanders, I'm a big fan of futurology and I am a moderator of the subreddit /r/futurology.
What do you think will have to be done regarding massive unemployment due to automation permanently killing jobs with no fault on the people losing these jobs? This video is the best one discussing these issues.

His Answer
Very important question. There is no question but that automation and robotics reduce the number of workers needed to produce products. On the other hand, there is a massive amount of work that needs to be done in this country. Our infrastructure is crumbling and we can create millions of decent-paying jobs rebuilding our roads, bridges, rail system, airports, levees, dams, etc. Further, we have enormous shortages in terms of highly-qualified pre-school educators and teachers. We need more doctors, nurses, dentists and medical personnel if we are going to provide high-quality care to all of our people. But, in direct response to the question, increased productivity should not punish the average worker, which is why we have to move toward universal health care, making higher education available to all, a social safety net which is strong and a tax system which is progressive.

As for the IT industry, obviously it will vary depending on what you mean. But the likes of software engineering is here to stay IMO. Here's a good explanation

Programming is continually being automated, but it just takes us to higher and higher levels of abstraction. Many things in higher-level languages such as Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc. are automations of things that would take a lot more code to do in lower-level languages, going all the way down to machine code. But some beautiful individuals have been slowly but surely automating the things we know we do a lot, and would rather not have to keep doing manually. So we're doing different things now than we used to, simply because we're less distracted by mindless tasks. In other words: Yesterday's programming has been automated. Today's programming will be automated. What's left is tomorrow's programming.

PopePalpatine

When I read that "yesterday's programming has been automated", I thought of Squarespace. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of web developers will have to re-train because of website-building tools like it.

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

If there is popular attitude to favour change, of some sort, would the senatorial races held at the same reflect the presidential victor: ie if party X wins the executive office then the momementum would carry over to them picking up votes to win extra senate seats. So could this overturn the legislative issue that Black Swan mentioned?

Not sure if I am interpreting your suggestion correctly, and if I am doing so incorrectly, then I apologise.

If you are suggesting that votes for the presidency should also automatically result in votes or otherwise contribute to seats in the US Senate, this may be problematic. This may increase the likelihood of one-party control. One-party control of the Executive (presidency) and Congress has not been beneficial to their 3-branch system of government, and has also resulted in US Supreme court stacking of justices that favour the controlling party agenda. One-party control ultimately removes checks-and-balances between the 3 branches of American government; i.e., their 2-party system is dysfunctional per John Adams warnings, and one-party control is greatly worse. Think of other countries where one-party control is prevalent; e.g., PRC, etc..

Wompa1

Magnate wrote: »

As for the IT industry, obviously it will vary depending on what you mean. But the likes of software engineering is here to stay IMO. Here's a good explanation

Not necessarily. It will be around for a while longer. I'm in coding myself. There's self learning technology already out there. If you have self learning tech for programming, you could just give it what you want as an end result, it will use it's knowledge of coding and spit out a working application. That one is a loooooooong way off. A User Group I'm leading had an IOT demo 2 months ago...showing automating the DataCenter. It was some pretty cool stuff. A lot of it is in it's very early stages. I have no doubt that I've got at least another 10-15 years of being relevant if I keep skilled up. After that, it's anybodys bet.

Thargor

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34260966

Carson surges into the race, could be a contender but they need to slap some personality on him fast.

Hande hoche!

I'm still amazed at how poorly Jeb is doing, all that cash and name recognition at the start.

MightyMandarin

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I'm still amazed at how poorly Jeb is doing, all that cash and name recognition at the start.

We're still in that 'silly season' stage of the race, establishment outsiders seem to be the flavour of 2015 for voters on both sides and Jeb is frankly boring and monotonous. All of these reasons are why he's suffered a lot.

Don't rule him out though. He and Hillary might be suffering now, but they have warchests and endorsements behind them. It's up to Bernie and Trump, Carson etc. to get as far ahead as they can by January and hope they start picking up big endorsements and cash then.

Amerika

Carly Fiorina will be at the adult table in tonight’s GOP debate. I expect to see a big jump in the polls for her after tonight.

Overheal

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I'm still amazed at how poorly Jeb is doing, all that cash and name recognition at the start.

It's the name recognition that's killing him

Brian?

Hande hoche! wrote: »

I'm still amazed at how poorly Jeb is doing, all that cash and name recognition at the start.

Jeb! is doing alright. He just needs to weather the Trump nonsense storm until actual voting begins.

A Primal Nut

Donald Trump attempting to show off his Christian credentials is hilarious. It reminds me of the spoof movie "The Campaign".

Trump says he can’t remember ever asking God for forgiveness for anything

He has downplayed the importance of Holy Communion, flippantly saying, “I drink the little wine, which is about the only wine I drink, and I eat the little cracker.”

While he says he favors marriage between a man and a woman, he has attended a gay wedding.

In 2012, he delivered an address at Liberty University, a school in Virginia for evangelicals, and began showing crowds of conservatives his 1953 confirmation class photo, which has him in the back row in jacket and tie, his pastor seated in the center.

That prompted a round of criticism from some of his Republican rivals, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who accused Trump of never having read the Bible.

"The Bible is special," Trump said. "The Bible -- the more you see it, the more you read it, the more incredible it is... I don’t like to use this analogy, but like a great movie, a great, incredible movie. You’ll see it once, it will be good. You’ll see it again. You can see it 20 times and every time you’ll appreciate it more. The Bible is the most special thing.”

Nearly three weeks after Donald Trump was first asked to name his favorite Bible verse, he finally has an answer: He likes what the Book of Proverbs says about not bending to envy.

"Proverbs, the chapter 'never bend to envy,'" Trump said in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network's The Brody File on Tuesday evening in California. "I’ve had that thing all of my life where people are bending to envy." It was not clear whether Trump appreciated the passage because he had struggled with envy personally, or whether he was referring to envy he had experienced from others.

It also wasn't clear which verse the Republican front-runner was talking about: A search of several of the most-used standard versions of the Bible did not turn up any verse or chapter that urges people not to "bend to envy."

I find it hard to believe Donald Trump ever read the bible, let alone 20 times.

Regarding the envy proverb, someone asked his aides to clarify which passage he went, and in that one it says not to be envious of people who are evil; so Trump saying he's spent his whole life dealing with people who are envious of him, and that's why it's his favorite passage; is interesting to say the least.

To be fair I can't blame him too much, if people expect their president to be Christian, then so be it. Obama was also accused of suddenly becoming a lot more religious around the time he started running for President.


Links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/16/donald-trump-likes-that-proverbs-verse-that-might-not-exist/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/09/14/donald-trump-leading-among-evangelical-voters-despite-multiple-marriages-and-past-support-abortion-rights/yYaJO34EAm5QJtNCdZ84NL/story.html

Hande hoche!

Overheal wrote: »

It's the name recognition that's killing him

Ah sure, quite a few commentators were mentioning lack of name recognition as one of the reasons for Saunders lagging behind Hilldog in some polls :pac:

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Carly Fiorina will be at the adult table in tonight’s GOP debate. I expect to see a big jump in the polls for her after tonight.

Carly Fiorina ran for one of California's US Senate posts in 2010 and lost to Barbara Boxer, now she runs for President?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Carly Fiorina ran for one of California's US Senate posts in 2010 and lost to Barbara Boxer, now she runs for President?

Yup. A political newcomer taking on a powerful long-term Democratic Senator in a Democratic state that votes solidly Democratic. Fiorina took the counties in red...



I like her!

The Black Oil

I've not seen the previous debate or this one yet, but I heard Fiorina interviewed on WBUR a while back. There's no denying she's an effective communicator, she didn't fall into the potential pitfalls around certain keywords in the questions asked. Not a robust interview by any means (imo), gave enough sense of her style all the same.

Overheal

She left quite a legacy at HP, which keeps looking better

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/15/investing/hp-job-cuts-hewlett-packard/index.html

Regardless of the realities in the story at HP, most voters will look at that poorly especially as counter-PACs call it out. Bring on the debate lets she what she has got.

I'll still laugh at her for the HP Slate. We all got a laugh out of that at Best Buy; barely made it to the shelves before they announced it was a terrible mistake, liquidate all your [new] inventory asap.

Wompa1

Overheal wrote: »

She left quite a legacy at HP, which keeps looking better

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/15/investing/hp-job-cuts-hewlett-packard/index.html

Regardless of the realities in the story at HP, most voters will look at that poorly especially as counter-PACs call it out. Bring on the debate lets she what she has got.

I'll still laugh at her for the HP Slate. We all got a laugh out of that at Best Buy; barely made it to the shelves before they announced it was a terrible mistake, liquidate all your [new] inventory asap.

I'm not a fan of hers BUT she left HP a long time ago. Mark Hurd, Leo Apoetheker and Meg Whitman have all been in that job since. Mark Hurd bolstered it to the largest Tech company in the world at one point. The revenue was larger than Microsoft, Apple, Google etc. But the way he did that wasn't sustainable.

She didn't seem to have a clue. The company performed poorly and shed workers.

Her time in HP should rightly be pointed at to show, she doesn't have a business acumen at all. BUT to blame her for what's going on today is a little bit harsh