2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Even if a single party sweeped a general election, I doubt it is a situation which would last very long due to pressure from the constituencies, who would be far more sensitive to calls to impeach their senators/congressmen, or otherwise compel them to resign (all those "dirty little things" that every politician has that are open secrets but not worthy of going to the mattresses about)

I know there's a whole year to go but what the hell's going to happen guys? Things seem so up in the air, even this far out. I thought the consensus was it was going to be Hilary vs Jeb but Jeb seems way outside for the cons and obviously Hilary has got herself into a lot of potential bother! Personally I can't stand either of them though.

Trump for president?? I'm still convinced he's having a bit of a laugh but he does make good points along the way.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you think Obamacare is such a disaster as you make it out to be. Whilst there are some cases where people who, for whatever ridiculous reason, didn't want health insurance and were forced to get it, or people who were forced to get a more expensive plan, I think the benefits of having millions more Americans on healthcare plans cannot be understated.

It's well known that healthcare is very expensive in America in comparison to other developed countries, so when low earners are diagnosed with serious illness or have a bad accident it often results in the case that they have to sell whatever possesions they might have, including their house. Obamacare helps to stop things like this from happening.

Medical bills have been the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the United Sates so any reduction in the number of those suffering bankruptcy is to be welcomed. According to the below article published in the Wall Street Journal we can expect to see a decrease in this:


In his 2014 study, Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin dug into personal bankruptcy filings to figure out what happened after Massachusetts lawmakers made health insurance mandatory in 2005.
His findings? Massachusetts residents who file for bankruptcy protection these days have way less medical debt compared to the rest of the country. The typical Massachusetts person or couple who filed in 2013 had $3,041 in medical debt, while people everywhere else had an average of $8,594 in medical debt.
In fact, he found that Massachusetts is the only state where medical debt isn’t the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. (A loss of income is the No. 1 reason, he found.)
So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy?
“It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt,” Prof. Austin said in an interview Tuesday.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is fair to say no matter how you look at things there are many cases of voters voting in a way which to a neutral outsider looking in does not seem very rational including not voting to protect ones own interests.


Clearly we will disagree the way you see legislation regarding the financial industry. An industry which has destroyed the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans with continual criminal behaviour and which has shown itself unable to behave in a manner conducive to the welfare of all Americans when not regulated in a strict manner.

jank wrote: »

The general point is that the GOP had fair complaint against the way CNBC ran the debate and the ad-hominon questions. Like, I have not heard the 'what is your biggest weakness' question ask of me in an interview for years. If that question is asked, it is basically and indication that the HR person in question doesn't know $hit.

“If you look at the questions only, there’s frankly not much of a difference… including Fox, which is the great oracle of the RNC.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-smerconish-not-much-of-a-difference-between-cnbcs-debate-and-foxs/

20Cent wrote: »

If they are the GOP debates why don't they organise moderators that are sympathetic to them?

Who do they want as moderators? Limbaugh? Hannity? How is a president going to handle diplomacy if he's been coddled to only anticipate softball questions. "You're not doing your job while campaigning, shouldn't you let someone else fit your Senatorial shoes with respect to your campaign?" "Your tax plans as proclaimed have some apparent inconsistencies, could you clear those up?"

No the condidates just want questions that set them up for pre-prepared one liners and zinger soundbytes. "Mr. Bush, many have said you would make a great leader. How will you make America great again?" If the candidates want to answer such empty questions, they can post a blog on their website.

eire4 wrote: »

Not a fan of Hiliary Clinton myself. But how exactly was she a disaster as secretary of state? That is a very strong statement to make.

She supported the whole Arab Spring disaster, it only worked in Tunisia, everywhere else had chaos. She supported the Muslim brotherhood which was very questionable despite them winning an election.
Wanted to bomb Syria to remove Assad, as if the opposition were saints.
Totally ignores the threat that Russia posed, part of an administration who laughed at Romney who said Russia were the number 1 geopolitical issue, within two years Russia had annexed a part of Ukraine, again asleep on the job.
Supported the people of Benghazi despite videos coming out of Al Qaeda executing Gaddafi mercenaries, so was it any surprise the US ambassador and some of his staff died there, when you are that stupid with everything being black and white as it seemed for Mrs Clinton. Now all the Libyans have is chaos.
When the people of Bahrain rose up against their rulers, we saw her double standards, kept fairly quiet as the rulers in questions are allies.

She is incompetent and was asleep on the job.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You tend to take the view that governments are at fault for not creating the laws which would have prevented the financial crisis, right? As in, that it's downright insane to expect people to behave ethically unless they're forced to by law?

If that's the case, then surely you would support someone like Sanders who seeks to introduce those regulations?

Genuinely not taking a shot at you here, but I honestly sometimes get the feeling that you don't actually mind if the financial sector occasionally pulls a 2008 as long as the "right people" manage to steer clear of the explosion. Again, not trolling - that's what I'm getting from your posts. You believe that it's lack of regulation which causes financial meltdowns, yet you oppose regulation - ergo, you don't particularly care about financial meltdowns?

If I have this wrong, please explain how. Preferably in more than just a "lol you're being ridiculous" comment.

RobertKK wrote: »

She supported the whole Arab Spring disaster, it only worked in Tunisia, everywhere else had chaos. She supported the Muslim brotherhood which was very questionable despite them winning an election.
Wanted to bomb Syria to remove Assad, as if the opposition were saints.
Totally ignores the threat that Russia posed, part of an administration who laughed at Romney who said Russia were the number 1 geopolitical issue, within two years Russia had annexed a part of Ukraine, again asleep on the job.
Supported the people of Benghazi despite videos coming out of Al Qaeda executing Gaddafi mercenaries, so was it any surprise the US ambassador and some of his staff died there, when you are that stupid with everything being black and white as it seemed for Mrs Clinton. Now all the Libyans have is chaos.
When the people of Bahrain rose up against their rulers, we saw her double standards, kept fairly quiet as the rulers in questions are allies.

She is incompetent and was asleep on the job.

No big Hillary fan but to give her some defense

Most democratic people, politicians and nations generally support protest against corrupt or autocratic regimes on principle. The Egyptians democratically voted in the MB, as unpalatable as MB might have been, the election was legitimate, likewise support on principle. She did criticise the government of Bahrain over the protests, repeatedly.

As for action against Assad, she advocated supporting the moderate rebels early in the conflict (not some Iraq style invasion) and she had a point, Obama was reluctant to do so and the void was since filled with Islamists

Libya was international action lest we forget, she took responsibility for Benghazi, faired decently on the recent grilling (which seemed quite politically motivated more than anything)

As for Russia, well most countries were caught by surprise, but what were they realistically to do? besides she left office in 2013 before the real Russian issues