2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika · 04-08-2016 03:17PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The EU emits less than half the CO2 per capita the US does. France emits less than one-third the amount the US does per capita. Come back to me when you catch up with the rest of the world.

I notice the EU doesn't seem to have any problem getting goods and resources from some of the worst CO2 offenders in the world. But, hey, as long as it keeps off your balance sheet... right?

Glad you brought up economics. 97% of economists support a carbon tax.

I have found economists' predictions are usually wrong.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 03:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which agrees utterly with my sentiments.

page 3

2.1 is the readily agreed replacement rate.

page 5

And still, will all that, it is likely that the population can be 13 billion by 2100.

04-08-2016 03:25PM

Amerika wrote: »

And still, will all that, it is likely that the population can be 13 billion by 2100.

With a fertility rate below the replacement rate, and so a falling population every year thereafter until something changes.

Deleted User wrote: »

How long term are you thinking?

South Korea's current birth & death rates would have it extinct in 700 years naturally.

Contraception, education and lifestyle choices can and should bring about a change in our population growth without any need for anything like a genocide.

That change will be a reduction in population growth year on year for the next century. By 2100 we will have a shrinking global population.

Importantly, all without your genocide.

Billy86 · 04-08-2016 03:27PM

Amerika wrote: »

Please provide me me some reliable figures on the outcome, of what you feel can be done, will have on climate change, keeping in mind what happens with population growth and nations that do little to nothing to change climate change. I believe you will find that little will be accomplished in changing climate change, and the only true effect would be a transfer of wealth from richer countries to poorer countries.

First, technology becomes cheaper. A Bendix G15 computer in the 1950s cost the equivalent of $500,000-$1mn+ depending on sources; today you can get something incomparably better for way, way under $100. That's the great thing with technology, it is potentially limitless and infinite, and continues to help improve our lives. What would have happened if the lads back in the earlier parts of the last century took the attitude that it would accomplish little, and wasn't worth the investment?

Second, what leads you to believe that poorer countries, especially if their financial lot improves in the coming decades, will not to use this technology? There'll likely hit a point where the overall cost of fossil fuels (and the damage they cause to the local environment) will become more expensive to run as a whole than cleaner, more renewable alternatives.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 03:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

With a fertility rate below the replacement rate, and so a falling population every year thereafter until something changes.

That change will be a reduction in population growth year on year for the next century. By 2100 we will have a shrinking global population.

Importantly, all without your genocide.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I'll still bet on my forecasts over your dreams, and vote politically here in the US that align with my views accordingly.

04-08-2016 03:31PM

Amerika wrote: »

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But I'll still bet on my forecasts over your dreams, and vote politically here in the US that align with my views accordingly.

Why are your views forecasts and mine dreams?

My views are echoed firmly by the UN statistics that you asked me to check btw...

Which party aligns best with the genocide opinion btw?

Billy86 · 04-08-2016 03:32PM

Amerika wrote: »

When you say 'we' I suspect you really mean just America. And as long as America sticks to any and all agreements, other countries feel they are allowed to deviate, lie and cheat in their commitments as circumstances dictate. Economics will always trump any agreements regarding climate change. That, unlike the climate, will never change. At least I accept reality.

I'm sorry but this level of paranoia is simply unhealthy and governmental representatives of it detrimental to global affairs. Constantly assuming the worst in everyone else is a great way to divide everyone, have nobody working together, and to lower progress in all manner of fields as a result.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 03:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are your views forecasts and mine dreams?

My views are echoed firmly by the UN statistics that you asked me to check btw...

Which party aligns best with the genocide opinion btw?

My forecast is for a bleak world, yours seems to believe everything will be hunky-dory. From everything I've read, mine seems to be more realistic.

I will vote for the party that will keep America strong. And that is currently the GOP even with all their flaws, although I do hope for a growth in the Conservative party.

04-08-2016 03:49PM

Amerika wrote: »

My forecast is for a bleak world, yours seems to believe everything will be hunky-dory.

Is it?

I don't believe that a population of 11bn is something that if we could ultimately control we would envision being a good idea, but concede that it's enormously likely to happen.

I don't think I wrote anything about that being hunky dory apart from pointing out that the figures and trends suggest that we are slowing as a global population in growth terms, and that we are expected to reach a point where not only will our growth slow, but it will become negative.

That peak is quite high, and quite a way off yet, but is a peak which we expect to reduce from.

Your edit is telling. Your bleak outlook is more 'realistic from everything you've read', except what you presented didn't disagree with anything I said at all...

Amerika wrote: »

I will vote for the party that will keep America strong. And that is currently the GOP even with all their flaws, although I do hope for a growth in the Conservative party.

What is not strong about the America that the Democratic party envisions?

Billy86 · 04-08-2016 03:51PM

A new poll has Hillary Clinton ahead of Trump by 10 points! :eek:

So what clearly liberal-biased source of mainstream media did this come from? Erm.......... FOX News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/08/03/fox-news-poll-aug-3-2016/

Sixty-one percent of voters think Hillary Clinton is dishonest, yet she’s opened up a big lead over Donald Trump in the latest Fox News Poll.

Here’s why: majorities think Clinton is nevertheless qualified to be president, and has the temperament and knowledge to serve effectively. It’s the opposite for Trump: over half feel he is not qualified, and lacks the temperament or knowledge to lead the country. And his 62 percent dishonesty rating tops hers.

After the conventions, the Clinton-Kaine ticket leads the Trump-Pence ticket by 10 points (49-39 percent) in the race for the White House. Clinton’s advantage is outside the poll’s margin of error. A month ago, Clinton was up by six points (44-38 percent, June 26-28).

...

The Democrat is winning among the so-called “Obama coalition,” the key voting blocs that secured his re-election. Clinton is favored among women by 23 points (57-34 percent), blacks by 83 (87-4 percent), Hispanics by 48 (68-20 percent), and voters under 30 by 18 (49-31 percent).

...

When Libertarians Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are included in the hypothetical vote, they receive 12 percent, while Clinton takes 44 percent to Trump’s 35 percent. They siphon off support about equally from both the Democratic and GOP tickets.

...

On temperament, 64 percent say Clinton has it. Just 37 percent say Trump does. And 72 percent think Clinton has the knowledge to serve effectively, while 40 percent say the same for Trump.

The poll finds a couple things that could bode well for the incumbent party, most notably a positive rating for the president. A 52-percent majority approves of the job Barack Obama’s doing as president. Forty-five percent disapprove. Those are his best marks since May 2011, soon after U.S. forces killed Usama bin Laden, when 55 percent approved and 41 percent disapproved.

...

Finally, 77 percent of voters are familiar with the exchange between Trump and the parents of a Muslim-American soldier who died while serving in Iraq. Some 69 percent of them describe Trump’s criticism of the Khan family as “out of bounds.” Among Republicans, 40 percent think his response was “in bounds,” while 41 percent say “out of bounds,” and 19 percent are unsure.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 04:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

What is not strong about the America that the Democratic party envisions?

A couple of things of note… unable to maintain our former standard of living, living on the back of mounting debt, illegal immigration, the size and power of the federal government, crime and violence, less good jobs for the middle class, weakness in the eyes of the rest of the world, standard of education, high taxes and companies moving jobs offshore, and the availability of affordable energy.

04-08-2016 04:12PM

Amerika wrote: »

A couple of things of note… -unable to maintain our former standard of living,- living on the back of mounting debt,- illegal immigration,- the size and power of the federal government, -crime and violence,- less good jobs for the middle class,- weakness in the eyes of the rest of the world, -standard of education, -high taxes and -companies moving jobs offshore, -and the availability of affordable energy.

- How do you propose to change that?
- Tragedy of the Commons. The past generations said that you could pay for it. Incredible asymmetry between this and your position on green energy.
- Falling
- More or less Government required? More or Less Power?
- Falling
- How do you propose to change that?
- Perception =/= Reality
- Increasing
- High taxes relative to? Also, if you are paying high taxes in America, congratulations!
- How do you propose to stop this? Nationalize the companies? Very Communist of you.
- What's unaffordable about energy in the US? Relative to?

I have a feeling the bolded one is the most pertinent issue here.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 04:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

- How do you propose to change that?
- Tragedy of the Commons. The past generations said that you could pay for it. Incredible asymmetry between this and your position on green energy.
- Falling
- More or less Government required? More or Less Power?
- Falling
- How do you propose to change that?
- Perception =/= Reality
- Increasing
- High taxes relative to? Also, if you are paying high taxes in America, congratulations!
- How do you propose to stop this? Nationalize the companies? Very Communist of you.
- What's unaffordable about energy in the US? Relative to?

Smaller government, less federal government overseeing our daily lives, greater police power, lower taxes and less regulations to help increase manufacturing, add more jobs and bring back jobs to America, stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages, an overhaul to the education system, and a stronger military and better international negotiations, and the possibility of defunding and leaving a anti-US UN.

I have a feeling the bolded one is the most pertinent issue here.

I guess we need to agree to disagree on that.

04-08-2016 04:33PM

Amerika wrote: »

I guess we need to agree to disagree on that.

Feelings not Facts is it Newt?

Billy86 · 04-08-2016 04:59PM

Amerika wrote: »

A couple of things of note… unable to maintain our former standard of living,

This is a vague nothingness without detail.

living on the back of mounting debt,

The debt has increased a lot under Obama due to having to fix the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression brought about under the Bush administration - it's not perfect, but trying to saddle the blame solely on the Democrats is like walking into someone's home, taking a sh*t on the carpet, and complaining the home owner about the smell of sh*t in the air after they steam clean it out.

Just a reminder of the direction the US debt/budget was going in under Republican (Raegan/Bush Snr.), then Democrat (Clinton), then Republican Bush Jr.), good old Raegan, eh?

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President_(1940_to_2015).png

US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President_(1940_to_2015).png

illegal immigration,

So I take it you don't like Mike Pence, who wants to make illegals legal?

the size and power of the federal government,

This is very vague without some actual detail.

crime and violence,

Wonderful thing then that crime (and violent crime) have been dropping and dropping since Bill Clinton took office back in the early 90s.

less good jobs for the middle class,

You can thank Raegan and his 'trickle down economics' for that just as much, if not more, than anything else. Or if you'd rather something more recent... Bush has the worst tack record on jobs ever: http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Now let's take a quick little historical look... correct me if I am wrong, but I could have sworn that the four strongest performers here (Roosevelt, Johnson, Carter, Clinton) were all Democrat while the four weakest (Eisenhower, Ford, Bush Snr, Bush Jnr). And that's giving also-Republican Herbert Hoover who was by far the worst of the lot on that front a free pass because of the great depression.

weakness in the eyes of the rest of the world,

That's absolutely nothing but paranoia. Few (if any) governments have done as much damage to the US' international reputation as BushCo did in the 00s with their 'showings of strength' that destabilised the middle east. Obama has not been a complete Godsend, but has been a hell of a lot better on this front. Bill Clinton was incredibly good to this end as well, can't speak for Raegan or Bush Snr on this front.

standard of education,

Despite chunks of the GOP continue to lobby teaching intelligent design in schools, this again is a complete nothingness without actually providing some detail and specifics as to what you are talking about.

high taxes

Taxes are necessary to maintain a society, though again you need to add some actual detail. Do you mean taxes on the poor? The middle classes? The wealthy? Everyone? Something else?

and companies moving jobs offshore,

Companies like Donald Trump's, you mean? I do find it odd just how often Trump fans call him bad for the job and the opposite of what they want without noticing it.

and the availability of affordable energy.

And for a long term benefit.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 05:04PM

I’m surprised there is no media outrage over the $400 million cash payment by Obama to Iran (not in exchange for prisoners of course, wink, wink) over the fact that the money wasn’t given to families of victims of the 1983 Beirut bombing and other attacks that won a $2 billion judgment against Iran. Seemingly Obama cares more about his legacy than he does Americans. Although the payment was made 3 years after Hillary Clinton left the SOS position, she initiated the negotiations with Iran, so there is even more blood on her hands. (Actually, that was sarcasm, I’m not surprised there is no outrage from our media against Obama or Clinton's actions.)

marienbad · 04-08-2016 05:08PM

Amerika wrote: »

I’m surprised there is no media outrage over the $400 million cash payment by Obama to Iran (not in exchange for prisoners of course, wink, wink) over the fact that the money wasn’t given to families of victims of the 1983 Beirut bombing and other attacks that won a $2 billion judgment against Iran. Seemingly Obama cares more about his legacy than he does Americans. Although the payment was made 3 years after Hillary Clinton left the SOS position, she initiated the negotiations with Iran, so there is even more blood on her hands. (Actually, that was sarcasm, I’m not surprised there is no outrage from our media against Obama or Clinton's actions.)

Anything to say on billy86's thoughtful debunking of your economic arguments ? Or do you just cut and run to the next irrelevancy ?

Amerika · 04-08-2016 05:10PM

marienbad wrote: »

Anything to say on billy86's thoughtful debunking of your economic arguments ? Or do you just cut and run to the next irrelevancy ?

I can't comment on what I don't see. Don't take kindly to those who get away with personal attacks.

marienbad · 04-08-2016 05:15PM

Amerika wrote: »

I can't comment on what I don't see. Don't take kindly to those who get away with personal attacks.

His economic and crime indices are all better under Democrats - can you produce anything to refute that other than gut feel ?

Black Swan · 04-08-2016 05:16PM

Amerika wrote: »

Smaller government, less federal government overseeing our daily lives, greater police power

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."

Amerika wrote: »

Smaller government... and a stronger military

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

Amerika wrote: »

bring back jobs to America,
stop illegal immigration that is driving down wages

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.?

Amerika wrote: »

an overhaul to the education system

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.

Amerika wrote: »

better international negotiations, and the possibility of defunding and leaving a anti-US UN.

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)?

Billy86 · 04-08-2016 05:39PM

marienbad wrote: »

His economic and crime indices are all better under Democrats - can you produce anything to refute that other than gut feel ?

Of course not, which is why hard line republicans talk full of bluster and run away when confronted on it. Then a few days/weeks later return with that exact same bluster... and then run away when confronted on it. The a few days weeks/later... And over and over.

It's a sad and cowardly tactic, but it can be effective - if you say the same lie over and over and over enough, it becomes the truth to many. Especially those with the cognitive dissonance to give out about Democrats for "big government intrusion" (when Reagan and bush jnr increased government size possibly more than anyone else ever), and then in the same breath turn around and complain about not having enough police.

It's almost like a built in pre empting mechanism wherein you take both sides so you can reject whichever "the enemy" suggests without having to question why you disagree. So if Obama reduces the scale of government he is the bad guy for lack of control, and if he introduces 1mn police officers out of thin air tomorrow, he is the bad guy for increasing government intrusion on everyday lives. It does lead to some entertaining inconsistencies like him being labelled "godless" and "a Muslim" or "fascist" and "communist" at the same time, but all in all its a blight on democracy and society as a whole. It's definitively voting for a person because of the letter beside their name, and almost nothing else.

Black Swan · 04-08-2016 05:48PM

Amerika wrote: »

I’m surprised there is no media outrage over the $400 million cash payment by Obama to Iran

Contrary to what you said here, in the last couple of days I've seen a high level of media concern. To name only a few:

I could probably list hundreds or more news media sources showing concern about this $400 million, including national, regional, state, locale press and telly, but why bother? You have already made up your mind that it's not getting the attention it deserves by the news media.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 06:04PM

marienbad wrote: »

His economic and crime indices are all better under Democrats - can you produce anything to refute that other than gut feel ?

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.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 06:10PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Contrary to what you said here, in the last couple of days I've seen a high level of media concern. To name only a few:
Wall Street Journal

Washington Times

CNN

Fox News

PBS News Hour

CBS

CNBC

ABC

KTLA

USA Today

I could probably list hundreds or more news media sources showing concern about this $400 million, including national, regional, state, locale press and telly, but why bother? You have already made up your mind that it's not getting the attention it deserves by the news media.

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.

04-08-2016 06:18PM

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.

What is your solution to these effects of low-friction (not quite free) Trade in goods, services and labour? (aka Globalisation)

Protectionism? And Isolationism? The policies of Kim Jung-Un

johnnyskeleton · 04-08-2016 06:32PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Feelings not Facts is it Newt?

Mod note:

Constructive posts only please.

Suryavarman · 04-08-2016 06:32PM

Amerika wrote: »

I notice the EU doesn't seem to have any problem getting goods and resources from some of the worst CO2 offenders in the world. But, hey, as long as it keeps off your balance sheet... right?

The EU imports less than the US. What's your excuse now?

I have found economists' predictions are usually wrong.

Which is irrelevant to this particular topic. Do you always ignore scientific consensus or is it only when it conflicts with your ideology? This is why the Republican's are considered the anti-science party.

Amerika wrote: »

My forecast is for a bleak world, yours seems to believe everything will be hunky-dory. From everything I've read, mine seems to be more realistic.

I will vote for the party that will keep America strong. And that is currently the GOP even with all their flaws, although I do hope for a growth in the Conservative party.

Our forecast is for a bleak world. We don't bother keeping our heads in the sand pretending nothing's wrong though. We're trying to propose solutions to the problems facing the world. Something it seems the Republicans are completely incapable of doing.

Amerika wrote: »

A couple of things of note… unable to maintain our former standard of living, living on the back of mounting debt, illegal immigration, the size and power of the federal government, crime and violence, less good jobs for the middle class, weakness in the eyes of the rest of the world, standard of education, high taxes and companies moving jobs offshore, and the availability of affordable energy.

The Republicans are opposed to further redistribution so the only people that will be maintaining their standard of living will be the top quintile of income earners.

Donald Trump's tax cuts alone will add $10 trillion to the debt. The Republicans are the party of debt.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, is vitally important to the US economy.

What exactly is it about the size of the Federal Government that worries you so much? Is it the millions of people that have health insurance as a result of its size?

The US has less crime both now and over the last few years than it has in its entire history.

The only way to get a good middle class job is to get a college degree. What do Republicans propose that would make that easier?

What makes you think the world looks at America as weak? Your inferiority complex is kind of cute.

The standard of US education is appalling but what do Republicans propose that would improve it?

US taxes aren't high and the reason companies move jobs offshore is because American labour is too expensive. The alternative to Vietnamese workers making products is American robots making them, not American workers.

Billy86 wrote: »

...

The ability of the Government to influence the economy is vastly overstated. The reason Democrats have better job creation records is because they are lucky. If George Bush entered office one year later and left 9 months earlier he would have an amazing job creation record and Clinton and Obama's would look a whole lot worse.

Governments can take policies that ameliorate, worsen or cause recessions. They can also speed up or slow down a recovery. They can't really do anything else.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 06:47PM

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?"

The US Constitution’s articles and Amendments specify the prerogatives of the Federal Government.

1) Defense, war prosecution, peace, foreign relations, foreign commerce, and interstate commerce;
2) The protection of citizens’ constitutional rights (e.g the right to vote) and ensuring that slavery remains illegal;
3) Establishing federal courts inferior to the SCOTUS;
4) Copyright protection;
5) Coining money;
6) Establishing post offices and post roads;
7) Establishing a national set of universal weights and measures;
8 ) Taxation needed to raise revenue to perform these essential functions.

Those are the only duties of the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment states that all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

Shame on us for allowing the politicians through the Federal Government to take over our lives.

Hopefully we are starting to see a revolution in limiting the Federal Government to what they are actually responsible for.

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.?

Taxes, regulations, are the biggest reason. As long as America’s corporate tax code remains one of the highest in world, and our continued growth and job killing regulations remain in place, firms will continue to go elsewhere.

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.

Students in charter schools do better in school than the public educational system. Charter schools even do a better job teaching low-income students and minorities than traditional schools. They offer the opportunity to foster innovative environments that allow teachers and students to interact in ways that prepare them for jobs and skills that will be relevant in the future. Yet our federal, state and local governments fight charter schools at every opportunity, primarily because of teacher union lobbyists. Why not use the Charter school system to base our entire school system on?

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)?

The United Nations has become a hotbead of anti-Americanism, and is plagued by defeats and scandals. Other than some good on humanitarianism issues, it is worthless. It is time to close it down and start anew. America can do better negotiating on her own.

Amerika · 04-08-2016 07:01PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

The EU imports less than the US. What's your excuse now?

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

Black Swan · 04-08-2016 07:12PM

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.

Demographically speaking, one of the major factors affecting crime rates in America (both urban and rural), as well as other countries of the world, can be attributed to the ageing of the population. America is ageing. As the average age gets older, the lower the crime rates per capita (see ME Cain, 2006, Ageing, Crime and Society), regardless if under Democratic or Republican presidential administrations.

Amerika wrote: »

And now with the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ essentially taking over police departments across the nation through oversight

To adapt an old cliché, if the police are doing nothing wrong pertaining to the "Civil Rights" of American citizens, why would they be adversely affected by DOJ "Civil Rights" oversight?

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments