2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

alastair · 24-10-2016 03:13PM

Amerika wrote: »

I contend a very large percentage of people in the US agree with me regarding Obama setting back race relations. When one refuses to acknowledge the thinking of such a large section of the US electorate, I find the comment ‘I find it hard to take seriously anything else in that post’ to be of little merit.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/obamas-biggest-failure-14638.html

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/gallup-poll-reveals-obama-has-turned-back-clock-on-race-relations/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/19/race-relations-reach-all-time-low-under-obama-poll/

http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2016/07/14/why-race-relations-have-gotten-worse-under-barack-obama-n2192725

Quite the collection of op-eds from uniformly conservative media sources. So who to believe - the Koch bothers funded Guiliani mouthpiece, the crowd who claimed that Stephen Hawking would have been euthanised under the NHS (and had to retract the claim when Hawking reasonably pointed out that the NHS had saved his life), The Moonies newspaper, or the blog for right-wing talk radio? Hmm.

alastair · 24-10-2016 03:16PM

Amerika wrote: »

ObamaCare is a complete failure, and I contend was always meant to fail so Democrats can push through a overly costly, highly inefficient, bloated government controlled single-payer system. Our horrible VA system on steroids… wonderful!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2016/05/30/obamacare-is-failing-on-purpose/#4b170b853edd

Another partisan op-ed piece from a Koch brothers funded think tank.

Here's some actual research into the impact of Obamacare by a non-partisan body - the Urban Institute: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2016/rwjf429930/subassets/rwjf429930_1

Amerika · 24-10-2016 03:30PM

Carcharodon wrote: »

Look seriously, come on, join reality for just a few minutes, leave the hate at the door for just a little while.
Firstly, it's not a matter of blaming the previous president for the poor economic conditions he inherited, it's just a fact that these poor economic conditions existed, many of us lived through it and it was incredibly tough, under Obama I've been able to achieve success, start a new business, use Obamacare to keep my insurance from previous employer. Do I think he is personally responsible for this, no, many factors are in place but it's a fact he has presided over this recovery.
I would love to know what decimation of military you talk of, that's just pure nonsense, don't just lie.
You say he worked so hard to bankrupt coal industry, another lie, you think America should be doubling down on these industries, the future is renewable energy, an idiot can see that, republicans act like people love working in the coal mines as if it some dream job and the only one available, why would we want the next generation of kids working in this industry ?
Race relations have been set back decades??? Jesus, you've already been debunked my many on here about that, another clear lie, has he revoked their right to vote, reintroduced segregation?????
I suppose he has also made a mistake in being progressive for gay rights ?
Just leave the bubble man, it's not so bad outside it

Personally, I would never call someone who has valid opinions opposite of mine, a liar and an idiot. But that’s just me.

I’ve already addressed the failure of ObamaCare in another post.

As to the decimation of the military… through budget cuts and the shedding of so many troops and weapons, that Obama has placed our military posture as marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests, at best.

http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/

Obama has followed through on his promise to bankrupt the coal industry by using the regulatory powers of the Enviromental Protection Agency as his weapon of choice.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/killing-coal-the-obama-administrations-intentional-assault-on-an-industry/

And Obama’s clean energy program currently appears to be little more than a transfer of wealth to his corny donors and political friends. And I see Hillary Clinton carrying on this despicable practice. Perhaps green energy is the future, perhaps not. Why not let the free market and demand see if it can be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and have a cost efficient future that won't hurt the low and middle class?

http://www.stridentconservative.com/solarcity-the-epitome-of-obamas-green-energy-scam/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/green-scam-80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/

Amerika · 24-10-2016 03:34PM

alastair wrote: »

Quite the collection of op-eds from uniformly conservative media sources. So who to believe - the Koch bothers funded Guiliani mouthpiece, the crowd who claimed that Stephen Hawking would have been euthanised under the NHS (and had to retract the claim when Hawking reasonably pointed out that the NHS had saved his life), The Moonies newspaper, or the blog for right-wing talk radio? Hmm.

Wouldn't it be more productive to attack the content and not sources? Ad Hominem attacks do nothing in countering an argument.

Brian? · 24-10-2016 03:36PM

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more productive to attack the content and not sources? Ad Hominem attacks do nothing in countering an argument.

I genuinely worry about you if you think posting op-eds from right wing think tanks is proof of something.

The link from the heritage foundation on military strength is awful, just a load of coloured boxes with no back up.

alastair · 24-10-2016 03:38PM

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more productive to attack the content and not sources? Ad Hominem attacks do nothing in countering an argument.

These were op-ed pieces to begin with - so the sources are all that you can deal with. There's no content beyond the writer's opinions.

Billy86 · 24-10-2016 03:39PM

Amerika wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more productive to attack the content and not sources? Ad Hominem attacks do nothing in countering an argument.

This post is the definition of irony, considering Trump fans (including this one's) propensity to cry bias rather than attack the point, any and every time something biased comes our against him.

Zubeneschamali · 24-10-2016 03:40PM

Brian? wrote: »

I genuinely worry about you if you think posting op-eds from right wing think tanks is proof of something.

Of course he doesn't, it's just noise. If you can't blind them with science, baffle them with...

Amerika · 24-10-2016 03:41PM

alastair wrote: »

Another partisan op-ed piece from a Koch brothers funded think tank.

Here's some actual research into the impact of Obamacare by a non-partisan body - the Urban Institute: http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/issue_briefs/2016/rwjf429930/subassets/rwjf429930_1

There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/theapothecary/files/2016/07/Brookings-Rebuttal-1c.jpg?width=960

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/07/28/overwhelming-evidence-that-obamacare-caused-premiums-to-increase-substantially/#3e3e51d146e3

And insurance premiums under ObamaCare are set to skyrocket again in November (just after the election?). Unfortunately, reality has a much harder effect on a persons pocketbook than all the favorable flawed and biased studies in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/upshot/obamacare-premiums-set-to-rise-even-for-savvy-shoppers.html

alastair · 24-10-2016 03:45PM

Amerika wrote: »

There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/upshot/obamacare-premiums-set-to-rise-even-for-savvy-shoppers.html

'Fraid not (I assume you're aware that your NYT link debunks the price increase claim from Sally Pipes in Forbes above?): http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/07/21/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-than-you-think/

Since the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) health insurance marketplaces first took effect in 2014, news story after story has focused on premium increases for certain plans, in certain cities, or for certain individuals. Based on preliminary reports, premiums now appear set to rise by a substantial amount in 2017.

What these individual data points miss, however, is that average premiums in the individual market actually dropped significantly upon implementation of the ACA, according to our new analysis, even while consumers got better coverage. In other words, people are getting more for less under the ACA.

So this would be an argument with about as much merit as your previous erroneous claim about Obama's being the first administration to see GDP growth under 3%.

Amerika · 24-10-2016 03:57PM

alastair wrote: »

'Fraid not (I assume you're aware that your NYT link debunks the price increase claim from Sally Pipes in Forbes above?): http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/07/21/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-than-you-think/

So this would be an argument with about as much merit as your previous erroneous claim about Obama's being the first administration to see GDP growth under 3%.

Major insurers have and are continuing to pull out of ObamaCare all across the country, and many of those that remain are instituting large premium increases.

And the president, in an attempt to save his signature failure, is now trying to find funds (which would against the law) to bail out the remaining companies who do participate in ObamaCare.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/aetna-unitedhealth-pulling-out-of-obamacare-leavin/

alastair · 24-10-2016 04:08PM

Amerika wrote: »

Major insurers have and are continuing to pull out of ObamaCare all across the country, and many of those that remain are instituting large premium increases.

And the president, in an attempt to save his signature failure, is now trying to find funds (which would against the law) to bail out the remaining companies who do participate in ObamaCare.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/aetna-unitedhealth-pulling-out-of-obamacare-leavin/

Strange that Kaiser have, after undertaking research into the 2017 situation had this to say:

Cynthia Cox, an associate director at the Kaiser Family Foundation, which has analyzed similar rate filings for big cities, said that on the whole “the factors that are driving premiums to increase in 2017 are one-time factors.” Price trends for future years, she said, will depend on how many people sign up.

K-9 · 24-10-2016 04:12PM

Amerika wrote: »

Personally, I would never call someone who has valid opinions opposite of mine, a liar and an idiot. But that’s just me.

I’ve already addressed the failure of ObamaCare in another post.

As to the decimation of the military… through budget cuts and the shedding of so many troops and weapons, that Obama has placed our military posture as marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests, at best.

http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/

Obama has followed through on his promise to bankrupt the coal industry by using the regulatory powers of the Enviromental Protection Agency as his weapon of choice.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/killing-coal-the-obama-administrations-intentional-assault-on-an-industry/

And Obama’s clean energy program currently appears to be little more than a transfer of wealth to his corny donors and political friends. And I see Hillary Clinton carrying on this despicable practice. Perhaps green energy is the future, perhaps not. Why not let the free market and demand see if it can be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and have a cost efficient future that won't hurt the low and middle class?

http://www.stridentconservative.com/solarcity-the-epitome-of-obamas-green-energy-scam/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/green-scam-80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/

Just on coal mining jobs, banning mountain top removal mining might help:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

But of course Republicans will moan about the EPA, big Government and regulations.

But that's often the stupidity of right wing economic thinking, moaning about jobs while actively supporting destructive practices that cut costs, and costs always means jobs losses.

Square that one!

Amerika · 24-10-2016 04:18PM

A simple fact is another 1 million people will soon be losing their ObamaCare plans as insurers exit the market, and their options will be limited and their premiums will rise significantly because of it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-14/more-than-1-million-in-obamacare-to-lose-plans-as-insurers-quit

And both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are making the failure of ObamaCare a major part of their campaigns.

Amerika · 24-10-2016 04:23PM

K-9 wrote: »

Just on coal mining jobs, banning mountain top removal mining might help:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

But of course Republicans will moan about the EPA, big Government and regulations.

But that's often the stupidity of right wing economic thinking, moaning about jobs while actively supporting destructive practices that cut costs, and costs always means jobs losses.

Square that one!

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) is the primary federal law that regulates the environmental effects of coal mining in the United States. It requires coal mine companies to rehabilitate the land after coal mining operations have stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Mining_Control_and_Reclamation_Act_of_1977

alastair · 24-10-2016 04:30PM

Amerika wrote: »

A simple fact is another 1 million people will soon be losing their ObamaCare plans as insurers exit the market, and their options will be limited and their premiums will rise significantly because of it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-14/more-than-1-million-in-obamacare-to-lose-plans-as-insurers-quit

Churn of health plans isn't anything new. 1 million people aren't losing their health insurance, just those specific plans. Some premiums will rise, but some will fall too.

Amerika · 24-10-2016 05:23PM

I was always was skeptical of many of the polls that showed such large numbers for democrats that were so different from other polls, and thought the results were because of oversampling groups favorable to democrats. The recent email leak of Podesta seems to confirm my suspicion. They are influenced by democrats convincing some polls to oversample democrats, key regions of democratic control, ethnics, and the young.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

pumpkin4life · 24-10-2016 05:28PM

Amerika wrote: »

I was always was skeptical of many of the polls that showed such large numbers for democrats that were so different from other polls, and thought the results were because of oversampling groups favorable to democrats. The recent email leak of Podesta seems to confirm my suspicion. They are influenced by democrats convincing some polls to oversample democrats, key regions of democratic control, ethnics, and the young.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples

Fùck, and there I was making posts about why a number of the polls making up 538's predictions are unsound from a statistical point of view :eek:

Amerika · 24-10-2016 05:38PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Fùck, and there I was making posts about why a number of the polls making up 538's predictions are unsound from a statistical point of view :eek:

It’s FiveThirtyEight that may have egg on their face. The most accurate poll from 2012 was the IBD/TIPP Tracking poll. And as of now they have the race as a Tie. Of course some polls that are used to generate the overall average show Clinton up from 9 to 12 points. These are the polls that I was referring to in my post.

Brian? · 24-10-2016 05:50PM

Amerika wrote: »

It’s FiveThirtyEight that may have egg on their face. The most accurate poll from 2012 was the IBD/TIPP Tracking poll. And as of now they have the race as a Tie. Of course some polls that are used to generate the overall average show Clinton up from 9 to 12 points. These are the polls that I was referring to in my post.

538 called 50/50 states in 2012. That's the definition of accuracy.

Billy86 · 24-10-2016 05:54PM

2008: 49/50
2012: 50/50

Let's see how much egg 538 wind up with on their faces for 2016 on November 9th, I'm guessing no more than they did last time around when Republicans were making the exact same claims.

Overheal · 24-10-2016 06:01PM

With 2 weeks to go I suspect they could reduce the weight of certain stats as they do already. Polls are all graded and weighed on different scales in the model and error checking is performed to identify outliers. Basically they'd have to rig several varying polls over an extended period to influence the projection significantly. Actually it just sounds like cheap kicks for media bytes just like Trumps Reddit army rigged online polling so his surrogates could trumpet those

Permabear · 24-10-2016 07:23PM

This post has been deleted.

alastair · 24-10-2016 07:46PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Colin Powell isn't exactly in the best position to judge, given his record.

InTheTrees · 24-10-2016 08:14PM

alastair wrote: »

Colin Powell isn't exactly in the best position to judge, given his record.

Poor Colin Powell. Hitched his career to George W and now will be remembered for trying to convince the UN Security Council that a toy aeroplane was a weapon of mass destruction.

InTheTrees · 24-10-2016 08:28PM

Amerika wrote: »

ObamaCare is a complete failure, and I contend was always meant to fail so Democrats can push through a overly costly, highly inefficient, bloated government controlled single-payer system.

Naturally the right wingers hate it but they havent offered any realistic alternatives. Its a bit rich to call it a "complete failure" when conservatives have done nothing but block any attempts to reform the mess that american healthcare had become.

Now that there's a possibility of a democrat in the white house along with a Democratic party controlled senate, they will be working to improve and refine Obamacare. No doubt the republicans will continue to obstruct.

Permabear · 24-10-2016 08:49PM

This post has been deleted.

Amerika · 24-10-2016 08:52PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Naturally the right wingers hate it but they havent offered any realistic alternatives. Its a bit rich to call it a "complete failure" when conservatives have done nothing but block any attempts to reform the mess that american healthcare had become.

Now that there's a possibility of a democrat in the white house along with a Democratic party controlled senate, they will be working to improve and refine Obamacare. No doubt the republicans will continue to obstruct.

Is there anything Hillary Clinton is proposing to fix Obamacare that doesn't involve the federal government throwing massive amounts at it, at taxpayer's expense?

Overheal · 24-10-2016 08:53PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

“What we are laying out today is a first-time-in-six-years consensus by the Republicans in the House on what we replace Obamacare with.”

WeHell Done Lads. 'Clap'. 'Clap'. 'Clap'. /viscous sarcasm

Permabear · 24-10-2016 09:02PM

This post has been deleted.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments