2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Suryavarman · 04-10-2016 07:34PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She spoke very little with regards to policy, which was at the heart of your claim that a 3rd party candidate would prevent greater discourse thereof in event of their inclusion.

I never said that. I'm not surprised that you would misrepresent what I said considering all you ever do is misrepresent things.

They clearly have established platforms and policy ideas. They have differing views on American Government and its conduct, that doesn't mean they are ignorant.

Their views don't make them ignorant, their policies do. One of Jill Stein's big policy ideas is to tackle the student debt problem using QE despite showing on a number of occasions that she hasn't the faintest understanding of QE>

Johnson's Aleppo gaffe doesn't mean he is ignorant of US foreign policy, as was evidenced by his answer to the question asked of him.

He spoofed out an incoherent answer. That seems like ignorance to me. It also seems like ignorance when he can't name a foreign leader apart from "the former Mexican President".

To hold a position that a candidate be infallible and all knowing is a ridiculous pretense. I would be more focused on their policy ideas and vision for the nation than their public speaking ability.

We don't know all the foreign policy challenges the next POTUS will face. We do know for a fact that on day one they will be expected to address the Syrian Civil War. We also know for a fact that Gary Johnson is completely unprepared to deal with it.

Utter tosh. The connection between a campaign having the money to purchase airspace and their ability for their message to permeate into the public consciousness is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Steven Levitt showed that campaign spending has a negligible effect on outcomes.

Perot was able to challenge blandishments put forth by Clinton and Bush. He attracted supporters from those dissatisfied with Bush's decision to raise taxes and those who were opposed to the ideas on Government spending put worth by the Democrats and Clinton. You state yourself that his numbers improved post debate, so clearly his inclusion allowed more voters to be drawn to his message.

Correlation =/= causation. You should really learn some basic statistics before you try to bring up changes in polling numbers. His polling numbers continued along a trend but never came anywhere close to his earlier numbers.

You have failed to put worth any valid reason why a 3rd party candidate shouldn't be included, bar perhaps your personal dislike for said candidates.

I dislike both candidates because they are dreadful candidates. I supported Gary Johnson up until he revealed himself to be an ignoramus.

marienbad · 04-10-2016 08:08PM

Amerika wrote: »

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

Amerika - this is a disappointing post from you .

The English language is more robust than you think and will survive the 'southern invasion'

And for a guy that knows knows his history so well have you forgotten how you came by Texas California etc - that was the real 'southern invasion'
That was the way of the world back then but lets not pretend it was anything other than what it was .

It seems over the course of time what goes around comes around .

AbusesToilets · 04-10-2016 08:15PM

I never said that. I'm not surprised that you would misrepresent what I said considering all you ever do is misrepresent things.

The American public have been beaten over the head all year about third party candidates and yet the combined support for third party candidates doesn't reach 15%. None of the third party candidates deserve to be on the stage. If Stein and Johnson were on the stage then the time allocated to each candidate would half and less issues would get covered. Is it really worth spending half as much time scrutinising candidates that stand a chance of winning just so Gary Johnson can have another "Aleppo moment" or so Jill Stein can show that she hasn't a clue how QE works?

Take from that what you will.

Their views don't make them ignorant, their policies do. One of Jill Stein's big policy ideas is to tackle the student debt problem using QE despite showing on a number of occasions that she hasn't the faintest understanding of QE>

I haven't followed Stein's campaign in any detail, reading on her statements re: college debt, she is fundamentally incorrect, as you stated.

He spoofed out an incoherent answer. That seems like ignorance to me. It also seems like ignorance when he can't name a foreign leader apart from "the former Mexican President".

We don't know all the foreign policy challenges the next POTUS will face. We do know for a fact that on day one they will be expected to address the Syrian Civil War. We also know for a fact that Gary Johnson is completely unprepared to deal with it.

Johnson's response is far from incoherent, certainly less so than the US's current policy of training Islamist groups under the pretense that they are "good". A strategy that has its genesis with Clinton and her response to the Arab Spring. So how well will she be expected to handle said crisis?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Steven Levitt showed that campaign spending has a negligible effect on outcomes.

Correlation =/= causation. You should really learn some basic statistics before you try to bring up changes in polling numbers. His polling numbers continued along a trend but never came anywhere close to his earlier numbers.

I dislike both candidates because they are dreadful candidates. I supported Gary Johnson up until he revealed himself to be an ignoramus.

I would suggest that while political spending isn't the singular factor that decides electoral success, it is true having access to funds greatly improves a candidates ability to reach voters. If said candidate possesses the necessary qualities to attract support, having an expanded reach is going to benefit them significantly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+campaign+spending+on+election+outcomes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Christy42 · 04-10-2016 08:20PM

Amerika wrote: »

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

True look what happened to the continent after the invasion from the east. It has been a few hundred years and they aren't rid of those blighters.

Seriously. Your complaint is that he is nice to Spanish speakers and are hoping the dyed in the wool homophobe who has about as much understanding of how science works as Donald Trump (potentially less if that is possible).

Black Swan · 04-10-2016 08:21PM

Amerika wrote: »

...future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided?

Donald Trump has more than once quoted Ronald Reagan as a source of grand government. What would Republican President Ronald Reagan do if president today? Would history repeat itself? In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law, which "granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants." It's doubtful that most Republicans, including former Democrat now Republican Donald Trump, would say that "our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided" when referring to Ronald Reagan. And of course no Republican wants to talk during today's presidential campaign about the Reagan amnesties or the George H.W. Bush amnesties or the GW Bush amnesties, or that rose by another name allowing tens of thousands of "unaccompanied illegal immigrants under age 18" to stay.

This reminds me when we Irish came by the millions and flooded America in bygone days, with many non-Irish that came before us claiming we were taking all the good jobs and should go back to Ireland. And back then the Statue of Liberty was a welcoming symbol to immigrants from Europe, rather than today branded as a symbol of a for-profit insurance corporation. We Irish helped make American Great, way before Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage.

Amerika · 04-10-2016 08:40PM

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika - this is a disappointing post from you .

The English language is more robust than you think and will survive the 'southern invasion'

And for a guy that knows knows his history so well have you forgotten how you came by Texas California etc - that was the real 'southern invasion'
That was the way of the world back then but lets not pretend it was anything other than what it was .

It seems over the course of time what goes around comes around .

Actually, the Republic of Texas became it’s own country in 1836 after it declared its independence from Mexico (although Mexico refused to recognize the Republic of Texas and intermittent conflicts between the two countries continued into the 1840’s). The annexation of Texas as the 28th state of the United States happened in 1845.

And unless we secure our southern border I don't know if the English language will survive. I already need to press '1' to speak to someone in English.

marienbad · 04-10-2016 08:51PM

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, the Republic of Texas became it’s own country in 1836 after it declared its independence from Mexico (although Mexico refused to recognize the Republic of Texas and intermittent conflicts between the two countries continued into the 1840’s). The annexation of Texas as the 28th state of the United States happened in 1845.

And unless we secure our southern border I don't know if the English language will survive. I already need to press '1' to speak to someone in English.

English will survive OK Amerika - but so what if it didn't ? Just like New Amsterdam and the Dutch , New Orleans and the French ?

Isn't that the essence of the American melting pot , constant change and renewal . Or are you saying to be a true American you must speak English ?

Amerika · 04-10-2016 08:55PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump has more than once quoted Ronald Reagan as a source of grand government. What would Republican President Ronald Reagan do if president today? Would history repeat itself? In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law, which "granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants." It's doubtful that most Republicans, including former Democrat now Republican Donald Trump, would say that "our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided" when referring to Ronald Reagan. And of course no Republican wants to talk during today's presidential campaign about the Reagan amnesties or the George H.W. Bush amnesties or the GW Bush amnesties, or that rose by another name allowing tens of thousands of "unaccompanied illegal immigrants under age 18" to stay.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act was sold to the people as a illegal immigration crackdown. It guaranteed there would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers, so we would never have to deal with illegal immigration again. It also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.

In my book any talk of amnesty would be illegal since as far as I’m concerned we have not fulfilled the requirements of the prior act. Therefore the act is null and void, and even those immigrants should lose their US citizenship and no further amnesty should be provided for those who came into the country illegally until the conditions of the 1986 are honored.

Both parties are to blame for the terrible condition our country is in due to illegal immigration. Time to correct it. And Trump is the only one with the guts to do something about it.

This reminds me when we Irish came by the millions and flooded America in bygone days, with many non-Irish that came before us claiming we were taking all the good jobs and should go back to Ireland. And back then the Statue of Liberty was a welcoming symbol to immigrants from Europe, rather than today branded as a symbol of a for-profit insurance corporation. We Irish helped make American Great, way before Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, etc., etc.

I'm Irish also, and by law considered an Irish citizen. Interesting when you get on this kick about the good old days of early immigration and The New Colossus sonnet, you always fail to note they all came here LEGALLY!

Amerika · 04-10-2016 09:01PM

marienbad wrote: »

English will survive OK Amerika - but so what if it didn't ? Just like New Amsterdam and the Dutch , New Orleans and the French ?

Isn't that the essence of the American melting pot , constant change and renewal . Or are you saying to be a true American you must speak English ?

Yes, give honor to customs and traditions, but we all need to be able to speak English. It has always been the case. Even the amnesty act of 1986 provided that that they possess minimal knowledge about US history, government, and the English language in order to receive amnesty. We've slid down the rabbit hole, and need to find a way out.

ancapailldorcha · 04-10-2016 09:06PM

Amerika wrote: »

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

Use the candidates proper names please and ditch the petty name calling.

Amerika · 04-10-2016 09:26PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Use the candidates proper names please and ditch the petty name calling.

That's his nickname.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tim-kaine-democratic-conventon-226350

Overheal · 04-10-2016 09:29PM

In my book any talk of amnesty would be illegal

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

Therefore the act is null and void, and even those immigrants should lose their US citizenship and no further amnesty should be provided for those who came into the country illegally until the conditions of the 1986 are honored.

I'm not certain your post exemplifies any experience on the bench..

Amerika · 04-10-2016 09:35PM

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not certain your post exemplifies any experience on the bench..

Never claimed it did... but it does represent a good portion of 'we the people.'

Overheal · 04-10-2016 09:37PM

Amerika wrote: »

Never claimed it did... but it does represent a good portion of 'we the people.'

Hopefully not; I assume the people have a better understanding of the law, especially that of free speech.

Amerika · 04-10-2016 09:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

Hopefully not; I assume the people have a better understanding of the law, especially that of free speech.

What does free speech have to do with it?

Black Swan · 04-10-2016 09:49PM

Amerika wrote: »

I'm Irish also, and by law considered an Irish citizen. Interesting when you get on this kick about the good old days of early immigration and The New Colossus sonnet, you always fail to note they all came here LEGALLY!

This ignores and diverts the discussion from today's presidential policy positions regarding illegal immigration, including a history of amnesties signed into law (or by executive order) by Republican and Democrat presidents (including Ronald Reagan). They were illegal, yet allowed to stay and in many cases naturalised.

Using your "LEGALLY" rationale, should the US under the rule of law now honour the treaties they signed with the original peoples that were here thousands of years before your "English" speaking settlers and miners and oil pumpers arrived? For example, should the US now honour the Sioux Treaty of 1868 and give back large parts of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Colorado to the Sioux, who have been infested with illegal immigrant miners, oilers, ranchers, and farmers from the surrounding US in violation of treaties signed by the US? Does not the rule of law apply to everyone, not just special interests? I find all too often that today's illegal immigration Republicans and Democrats during presidential campaigns always talk tall about laws when it serves their own financial interests, and conveniently ignore or revise history when it doesn't.

Amerika · 04-10-2016 10:11PM

Black Swan wrote: »

This ignores and diverts the discussion from today's presidential policy positions regarding illegal immigration, including a history of amnesties signed into law (or by executive order) by Republican and Democrat presidents (including Ronald Reagan). They were illegal, yet allowed to stay and in many cases naturalised.

Using your "LEGALLY" rationale, should the US under the rule of law now honour the treaties they signed with the original peoples that were here thousands of years before your "English" speaking settlers and miners and oil pumpers arrived? For example, should the US now honour the Sioux Treaty of 1868 and give back large parts of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Colorado to the Sioux, who have been infested with illegal immigrant miners, oilers, ranchers, and farmers from the surrounding US in violation of treaties signed by the US? Does not the rule of law apply to everyone, not just special interests? I find all too often that today's illegal immigration Republicans and Democrats during presidential campaigns always talk tall about laws when it serves their own financial interests, and conveniently ignore or revise history when it doesn't.

I gleamed most of this from elsewhere:

Native Americans became part of the United States. I believe then the treaties were voided. Where they could, tribes renegotiated treaties guaranteeing them reservation of remaining land and assets, and retention of sovereignty. Although their sovereignty has been diminished, it has not been terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, new treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

I guess they could always decide to proclaim independence and go to war with the US. But something tells me that wouldn't work out well. I think they can get more for themselves in courts of law.

Black Swan · 04-10-2016 10:40PM

Amerika wrote: »

I gleamed most of this from elsewhere:

Native Americans became part of the United States. And as such prior treaties became voided as treaties are with nations not of the US. Where they could, tribes renegotiated treaties guaranteeing them reservation of remaining land and assets, and retention of sovereignty. Although their sovereignty has been diminished, it has not been terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, new treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

I guess they could always decide to proclaim independence and go to war with the US. But something tells me that wouldn't work out well. I think they can get more for themselves in courts of law.

US National Archives (retrieved today): "The Black Hills of Dakota are sacred to the Sioux Indians. In the 1868 treaty, signed at Fort Laramie and other military posts in Sioux country, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people. In 1874, however, General George A. Custer led an expedition into the Black Hills accompanied by miners who were seeking gold. Once gold was found in the Black Hills, miners were soon moving into the Sioux hunting grounds and demanding protection from the United States Army..."

Once again, the rule of law should apply to everyone, not just special interests that influence both Republican and Democratic presidential party candidates. In the early case, the rule of law was to be governed by treaty with the Sioux, but when gold was found in the Black Hills, not only did US citizens illegally migrate to the Black Hills to pillage Sioux gold, but they were supported by the US Army in violation of treaty.

US National Archives (continued): "...the United States would continue its battle against the Sioux in the Black Hills until the government confiscated the land in 1877. To this day, ownership of the Black Hills remains the subject of a legal dispute between the U.S. government and the Sioux." So much for the rule of law regarding illegal immigration when there's a profit to be made.

Pro Hoc Vice · 04-10-2016 10:50PM

Amerika wrote: »

I gleamed most of this from elsewhere:

Native Americans became part of the United States. I believe then the treaties were voided. Where they could, tribes renegotiated treaties guaranteeing them reservation of remaining land and assets, and retention of sovereignty. Although their sovereignty has been diminished, it has not been terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, new treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

I guess they could always decide to proclaim independence and go to war with the US. But something tells me that wouldn't work out well. I think they can get more for themselves in courts of law.

How then is there a case from the SC in 1980 titled UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS et al. found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/371

I have to say some (in fact all) of your musings I disagree with but I must say your understanding of the law is totally incorrect.

How you can legally think an Act of congress is illegal when same has never been struck down by the SC is staggering.

Amerika · 05-10-2016 03:57AM

Pence CLEARLY won the VP debate.

That is all.

RobertKK · 05-10-2016 04:11AM

Bill Clinton calls Obamacare 'crazy'.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/783414727187849216

Billy86 · 05-10-2016 04:33AM

So it appears pence disagrees with Trump on a whole lot of things, and seems to be in massive denial about Trumps love of Putin.

Overheal · 05-10-2016 04:34AM

Amerika wrote: »

Pence CLEARLY won the VP debate.

That is all.

No doubt with constant interruption, lies, and failures to answer direct questions.

Billy86 · 05-10-2016 04:52AM

Overheal wrote: »

No doubt with constant interruption, lies, and failures to answer direct questions.

Actually, apparently kaine was more guilty of interrupting. Pence on the other hand seemed to be running as VP to a different campaign than Trumps, entirely inconsistent with a lot of what he has said.

Most seem to have pence winning, but basically nobody has said it will have any impact on their vote. I didn't se it myself though.

oscarBravo · 05-10-2016 09:42AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Bill Clinton calls Obamacare 'crazy'.

https://twitter.com/politico/status/783414727187849216

No, he didn't.

RobertKK · 05-10-2016 10:09AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, he didn't.

Yet when Hillary was running against Sanders and at a town hall event she was questioned by a woman who said her health insurance had increased so much under Obamacare that it was not unaffordable and what would she (Hillary) do.
Well Hillary said this was terrible and that changes needed to be made to Obamacare.

oscarBravo · 05-10-2016 10:32AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Yet when Hillary was running against Sanders and at a town hall event she was questioned by a woman who said her health insurance had increased so much under Obamacare that it was not unaffordable and what would she (Hillary) do.
Well Hillary said this was terrible and that changes needed to be made to Obamacare.

...none of which has anything to do with the claim that Bill called Obamacare "crazy", which he didn't.

The ACA is far from perfect. The Republicans' answer? Scrap it! The Democrats' answer? Fix it!

One of those answers makes sense.

Amerika · 05-10-2016 11:24AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, he didn't.

Yes, yes he did!

Amerika · 05-10-2016 11:31AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...none of which has anything to do with the claim that Bill called Obamacare "crazy", which he didn't.

The ACA is far from perfect. The Republicans' answer? Scrap it! The Democrats' answer? Fix it!

One of those answers makes sense.

They've had seven years to 'fix' the monstrosity that is ObamaCare. It has only gotten worse in almost every way possible. It will collapse under its own weight. Insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges left and right.

oscarBravo · 05-10-2016 11:37AM

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, yes he did!

I'm not interested in getting into a pantomime. If it suits you to believe a GOP talking point caricature rather than what the man actually said, go for it.

Amerika wrote: »

They've had seven years to 'fix' the monstrosity that is ObamaCare.

They've had seven years of the GOP doing everything they possibly can to sabotage it. It's a bit like you getting a new car, me laying into it with a baseball bat for a few hours, and then scoffing at you for what a crap car you've got.

It's beyond pathetic how the GOP have made thwarting the president their sole and only mission in life since he was elected. It was particularly obvious when they overrode his veto on the "let's unilaterally get rid of sovereign immunity" bill, only to complain that the president should have tried harder to stop them from doing something so stupid.

Yes, I know that Democrats voted for that one too. Stupidity is not in short supply in Congress.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments