2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:51 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:You're saying the electorate will tire of Trump eventually and it's just a matter of getting them to that point. I'm saying the people have already tired of the Status Quo and will pick -anybody- or quite possibly any -thing- because they're well beyond that point of being tired with the establishment and "Business as usual".
I'm saying that Trump is the Status Quo. And that sooner or later people will see that. He's an empty suit. I just wish we had a better Democratic candidate.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3900
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Fri Feb 26, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Dauric wrote:You're saying the electorate will tire of Trump eventually and it's just a matter of getting them to that point. I'm saying the people have already tired of the Status Quo and will pick -anybody- or quite possibly any -thing- because they're well beyond that point of being tired with the establishment and "Business as usual".
I'm saying that Trump is the Status Quo. And that sooner or later people will see that. He's an empty suit. I just wish we had a better Democratic candidate.


No, Trump doesn't quite fit the status quo, if for no other reason than his personal life would have disqualified him from politics long before he ever got involved, at least in a 'normal' political environment. He tried for the PotUS last election and had to quit the field by May of 2011. His degree of ego makes me think that what changed from then to now is not him, 'cause why would a magnificent bastard* like him need to change?, but the rest of the political environment had passed some kind of threshold.

*Yes this is sarcasm. Note included for people who's sarcasm detectors just exploded.

Wishing the Dems had put more quality candidates forward is heartily agreed.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:30 am UTC

If you wanted better Democrats, then you should have voted for them during the midterms. Don't get mad at the politicians if the voters are the ones who let them down(lose).
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/chr ... kes-sense/
It's not entirely crazy that Christie endorsed trump. There's also opportunism in some GOP elites going on here.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:36 am UTC

There are no better ones currently, you can't vote for something that doesn't exist.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:39 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:There are no better ones currently, you can't vote for something that doesn't exist.
The 2014 election, the 2012, and 2010 election. Large swaths of the country where Democrats recruit fresh talent got slaughtered and replaced with fresh energetic young Republicans during each and every one of those elections. That's why I think you're misinformed.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:08 am UTC

sardia wrote:The 2014 election, the 2012, and 2010 election. Large swaths of the country where Democrats recruit fresh talent got slaughtered and replaced with fresh energetic young Republicans during each and every one of those elections. That's why I think you're misinformed.
Misinformed about what?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:55 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:There are no better ones currently, you can't vote for something that doesn't exist.

This. Democrats did have promising candidates but they got swept away by the mid term elections. That's why you're misinformed and you're claim that Democrats have no good candidates is misleading.
Despite what people say, outsiders aren't good politicians. You need lots of experience in local and state office to train people for higher office.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:18 am UTC

If you can't get elected than you aren't a promising candidate. Obama got to the Oval office by winning elections. Not by being promising. He did what he needed to do at a moment in time when he could.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:05 am UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10001
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:07 am UTC

I blame the media. Media loves their stupid stories about the inexperienced and downtrodden genius that, if given just one chance, proves to the world that they are the greatest.

It's bullshit.

You know what happens when the odds ar stacked against you? You lose. That's what it means when the odds aren't in your favor.

You know what all those tags to riches stories had? No, not luck, that's in a large number of stories but not universal. Luck helps a lot, but if you spend your nights with your hobbies in a public place and you have talent, you WILL get noticed eventually. Record companies have talent scouts specifically to find new musicians, and by scouts I mean underpaid interns who see if there are any rinky dink radio stations getting requests for obscure local musicians. Personality is almost more important than talent. Actually that's wrong; humans are SOCIAL creatures more than they are engineers, and all those engineering success stories are of brilliant but GREGARIOUS engineers that befriended enough people to support them. Sure it's luck that they meet, but no more so than dating.

So we have this bullshit narrative of arrogant assholes that know they are superior, we buy into it, and then wonder why we vote for shit like trump.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:21 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I blame the media. Media loves their stupid stories about the inexperienced and downtrodden genius that, if given just one chance, proves to the world that they are the greatest.

It's bullshit.

You know what happens when the odds ar stacked against you? You lose. That's what it means when the odds aren't in your favor.


I loathe very few things more than this "boo-hoo poor me, can't win so I shouldn't even try" mentality. It stands in direct opposition to the best features of Humanity which have allowed us to achieve so many great things in the face of such adversity.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:26 am UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:You know what happens when the odds ar stacked against you? You lose. That's what it means when the odds aren't in your favor.

I loathe very few things more than this "boo-hoo poor me, can't win so I shouldn't even try" mentality. It stands in direct opposition to the best features of Humanity which have allowed us to achieve so many great things in the face of such adversity.

It's way easier than the alternative, though.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:49 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:I just wish we had a better Democratic candidate.

We have a Democratic candidate who wants to get big money out of politics, and is walking the walk to prove it by not having a super-PAC. Who supports single-payer healthcare and tuition-free public universities, who opposes the Iraq war and the “patriot” act, who does not want to throw the book at Snowden, who recognizes that the “war on drugs” is a disaster and plans to end it, and who wants to demilitarize police and reform criminal justice so we don’t have the most prisoners in the world.

A candidate who intends to overhaul our immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for those already here, who objects to the fact that America has a long history of toppling democratically-elected governments around the world, who understands that climate change and the accompanying water scarcity is a major underlying driver of terrorism, who wants to move us to 100% renewable energy, who rejects both the extreme pro-gun and the extreme anti-gun positions, who thinks election day should be a national holiday, and who plans to rebuild our nation’s infrastructure.

A candidate who has never run a negative ad in his life, and is running a positive issues-oriented campaign.

What more do you want?

How about a candidate who generally polls ahead of all Republicans in head-to-head matchups?

A candidate who is the only one with a positive favorability rating for either party?
wee free kings

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:08 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:
morriswalters wrote:I just wish we had a better Democratic candidate.

We have a Democratic candidate who wants to get big money out of politics, and is walking the walk to prove it by not having a super-PAC. Who supports single-payer healthcare and tuition-free public universities, who opposes the Iraq war and the “patriot” act, who does not want to throw the book at Snowden, who recognizes that the “war on drugs” is a disaster and plans to end it, and who wants to demilitarize police and reform criminal justice so we don’t have the most prisoners in the world.

A candidate who intends to overhaul our immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for those already here, who objects to the fact that America has a long history of toppling democratically-elected governments around the world, who understands that climate change and the accompanying water scarcity is a major underlying driver of terrorism, who wants to move us to 100% renewable energy, who rejects both the extreme pro-gun and the extreme anti-gun positions, who thinks election day should be a national holiday, and who plans to rebuild our nation’s infrastructure.

A candidate who has never run a negative ad in his life, and is running a positive issues-oriented campaign.

What more do you want?

How about a candidate who generally polls ahead of all Republicans in head-to-head matchups?

A candidate who is the only one with a positive favorability rating for either party?

Typically, a healthy party would have all those positive traits, along with a wide assortment of positions tailored to each state or district. So what more do we want? More Democrats who are of a higher caliber. Great presidents usually have great congress behind them.

morriswalters wrote:If you can't get elected than you aren't a promising candidate. Obama got to the Oval office by winning elections. Not by being promising. He did what he needed to do at a moment in time when he could.
...if you think about it a little, you know your premise is very wrong. This oversells the mandate from every election, especially the close ones. This theory will lead you to false conclusions. For example, the GOP didn't become 20% dumber after November, 2008. They had the baggage of the economy collapsing, which swept away many promising young Republicans. Now if you can't understand the concept of events overpowering personal ability*, we should probably move on.

*Americans don't like to talk about it, but it's very common for global tides that are uncontrollable by a single person, no matter how elite, can wreck your life. The promising young college graduates of 2008 had stunted careers for years. By your logic, they are losers because they couldn't overcome the Great Recession.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 27, 2016 2:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote: Now if you can't understand the concept of events overpowering personal ability*, we should probably move on.
I understand it precisely. It is exactly why young men of promise is a meaningless statement unless and until they win elections. I don't care how they do it, I care that they do it. The best and the brightest bide their time, build a local base and then wait for their moments.
Qaanol wrote:We have a Democratic candidate who wants to get big money out of politics, and is walking the walk to prove it by not having a super-PAC. Who supports single-payer healthcare and tuition-free public universities, who opposes the Iraq war and the “patriot” act, who does not want to throw the book at Snowden, who recognizes that the “war on drugs” is a disaster and plans to end it, and who wants to demilitarize police and reform criminal justice so we don’t have the most prisoners in the world.
I share many of the same desires as Bernie Sanders. I also understand that currently a majority of registered voters don't. If you don't understand that then you don't really understand Trump. And you don't understand the process.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I share many of the same desires as Bernie Sanders. I also understand that currently a majority of registered voters don't.

Do you have a source for that? Because here is a recent poll that shows Bernie’s ideas are very popular:

Spoiler:
Image

Bernie was already the runaway favorite among independent voters all the way back in September. That is an approval voting poll, and independents supported Bernie by 17 points more than Trump and by 36 points more than any other Democrat in the race.

Moreover, Bernie has significant support among Republicans and received 25% of their votes in his last election. This isn’t a fluke:

As Mayor of Burlington, Bernie was “so fiscally conservative that some Republicans say he managed to ‘out-Republican the Republicans.’”

• He wants to audit the fed and audit the Pentagon

• He has been a constant champion for veterans

• Libertarian-leaning Republicans can also get behind Bernie’s opposition to the war on drugs and NSA spying.

• And even where they disagree, Republicans still respect Bernie’s honesty and integrity

• Heck, there’s a chance Bernie might even win some delegates to the Republican national convention, seeing as he was tied for first place among Vermont Republicans as of a few months ago.

Facts are facts. Bernie has cross-over appeal.

_
Attachments
Big_Ideas-Polling.png
Last edited by Qaanol on Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:22 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
wee free kings

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
sardia wrote: Now if you can't understand the concept of events overpowering personal ability*, we should probably move on.
I understand it precisely. It is exactly why young men of promise is a meaningless statement unless and until they win elections. I don't care how they do it, I care that they do it. The best and the brightest bide their time, build a local base and then wait for their moments.
Qaanol wrote:We have a Democratic candidate who wants to get big money out of politics, and is walking the walk to prove it by not having a super-PAC. Who supports single-payer healthcare and tuition-free public universities, who opposes the Iraq war and the “patriot” act, who does not want to throw the book at Snowden, who recognizes that the “war on drugs” is a disaster and plans to end it, and who wants to demilitarize police and reform criminal justice so we don’t have the most prisoners in the world.
I share many of the same desires as Bernie Sanders. I also understand that currently a majority of registered voters don't. If you don't understand that then you don't really understand Trump. And you don't understand the process.


According to most polls, a majority of Americans do support Sanders' ideas. I'll get cites later, on my phone and travelling.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby bentheimmigrant » Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:33 pm UTC

Wow, you seriously got ninja'd on that one.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:15 pm UTC

I don't need a citation. I'm living with the proof. The electorate has given Republicans both the Senate and the House. They are taking control of the States in both the Executive and the Legislative branches. If by some aberration, Sanders wins, what would happen?

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:45 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I don't need a citation. I'm living with the proof. The electorate has given Republicans both the Senate and the House. They are taking control of the States in both the Executive and the Legislative branches. If by some aberration, Sanders wins, what would happen?

In a world where Sanders gets elected, hopefully what would happen is the electorate would see how the Republicans logjam Sander's initiatives despite their popular support and so vote for democrats in the midterms.

Sure, it's a longshot heaped upon a longshot, but what's the alternative in, say, a Trump vs Sanders showdown? Vote for the clown?

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Sat Feb 27, 2016 4:53 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The electorate has given Republicans both the Senate and the House. They are taking control of the States in both the Executive and the Legislative branches. If by some aberration, Sanders wins, what would happen?

That “some aberration” is in fact precisely the “political revolution” which Bernie keeps talking about: it is millions of people showing up to vote who previously felt disaffected and stayed home. It is the enthusiasm for a candidate who actually shares your views instead of pandering to corporate interests. It is unprecedented turnout, which we already saw in New Hampshire where Bernie got more primary votes than anyone else in history.

And when voter turnout is large, when that large voter turnout is driven by excitement to support a quality presidential candidate, guess what happens? All those people who show up to vote for Bernie will also vote for Senators and Representatives and Governors and state legislators who share their views. And their views align with Bernie’s views, because Bernie’s views are popular and they are showing up to support him.

That is how we get a Congress that reflects what people actually want: by having a President who *creates a movement* and stands for things that benefit regular people rather than mega-donors. We are electing the leader of the free world, not the follower of the Republican extremists.
Last edited by Qaanol on Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:44 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
wee free kings

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Sat Feb 27, 2016 5:41 pm UTC

Well, I must say it's positively inspiring to see people being inspired about a political candidate that doesn't seem terrible from my point of view.

However, I also remember how people were excited about Obama and "Change". I'm not really sure if such New Deal -like revolutions can happen any more in Western democracies, especially in the US.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

elasto wrote:In a world where Sanders gets elected, hopefully what would happen is the electorate would see how the Republicans logjam Sander's initiatives despite their popular support and so vote for democrats in the midterms.
Create me a portal to that world, I would love to be there, rather than here.
Mambrino wrote:I'm not really sure if such New Deal -like revolutions can happen any more in Western democracies, especially in the US.
I'm uncertain that democracy as practiced in the US will exist at all in the future.

Mutex
Posts: 1342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Feb 27, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

Mambrino wrote:Well, I must say it's positively inspiring to see people being inspired about a political candidate that doesn't seem terrible from my point of view.


From a European point of view he's pretty moderate. I wish we had him instead of Corbyn here. Although his relaxed attitude to gun control would probably be a problem.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

The whole Sander's "Blame the Corporations" is just as much of a bullshit scapegoat argument as Trump's "Blame the Muslims" campaign. And honestly, every time he opens his mouth he repeats the same ignorant scapegoat argument.

The difference is that corporations aren't people, so its a bit of an easier pill to swallow. Beyond that, I honestly believe that making low-paying jobs literally illegal will hurt low-wage Americans more. I can get behind a progressive tax code however, but only if they don't plan on spending it on a huge number of programs.

I think most people can support free college for everybody. But no one will be able to agree on how we're going to pay for it. Furthermore, I do not believe that the US Education system is consistent enough across the country to even make this a good idea. The last big initiative to get everyone through college just got us a whole bunch of jobless college-educated students. Honestly, we need a program to fix our high schools and grade schools.

The Affordable Care Act is grossly unpopular on the right. The Affordable Care Act has been claimed to be "socialism", when it is in fact a free-market approach with a small government portion (ie: the website and some tax incentives). Single-payer health care is actually socialism, with the Government taking care of costs, and I honestly can't imagine the huge swaths of disenfranchised Republicans (who are currently voting, and currently angry at Obama to the point that they're electing Trump for office) to accept single-payer health care.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Mutex
Posts: 1342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:33 pm UTC

Plus the fact that corporations spend huge amounts of money interfering with politics for their own ends makes it easier to believe too.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:41 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Plus the fact that corporations spend huge amounts of money interfering with politics for their own ends makes it easier to believe too.


I'm for campaign finance reform and revisiting Citizens United. But the tool of the corporation has made America one of the greatest nations on Earth. Its very efficient at raising money, building factories and creating jobs in the middle of a desert. Only the combination of the Stock Market ($500 Million raised in equity through TSLA stock offerings), large banks (loans for the rest of the $5 Billion of the factory), highly educated population, and straight up elbow grease can make these sorts of things.

The key is sound policy that prevents corporations from using their massive money-intensive operations from supplanting democracy. Citizens United was a backwards step in that direction, but if anything, the current election has shown that money isn't everything. The most well-funded Republican dropped out of the election (Jeb!). And both Bernie Sanders and Trump have raised (and spent) significantly less money than their rivals.

As I stated before, policies that fuck corporations just because they're corporations is dumbass ignorant scapegoating. Bernie is very little different from Trump, the difference is that Bernie just hates on a different scapegoat, while Trump is Xenophobic. (and Xenophobia is definitely worse, don't get me wrong. But the ignorant scapegoating from Bernie isn't winning any favors from me).

Sound tax policy and rules in elections are all good and all. 50 BPS transactions taxes on the stock market on the other hand, is dumb as shit. I will not be able to take Sanders seriously until he educates himself on how this country works.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:who understands that climate change and the accompanying water scarcity is a major underlying driver of terrorism, who wants to move us to 100% renewable energy,

Blatant fearmongering... there couldn't be a link between climate change and terrorism, because terrorism has been steadily declining. Whatever climate policies we have will have minuscule impact on the future temperature, which will have tiny effect on the number of droughts, which will have negligible impact on terrorism, which isn't a real threat anyway. You're still orders of magnitude more likely to die in a bike crash than from a terrorist. BTW, didn't we already determine that Bernie is anti-nuclear?

Let's just admit it, we're safe! I could never be elected, because my platform would consist of telling people our problems aren't real or greatly exaggerated.

KnightExemplar wrote:Sound tax policy and rules in elections are all good and all. 50 BPS transactions taxes on the stock market on the other hand, is dumb as shit. I will not be able to take Sanders seriously until he educates himself on how this country works.

I agree, another annoying one is his apples-to-oranges comparison of capital gains vs. income tax - which if done his way, would probably result in LESS receipts.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:53 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:As I stated before, policies that fuck corporations just because they're corporations is dumbass ignorant scapegoating. Bernie is very little different from Trump...

Wow, you... you really just typed that, huh?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:34 pm UTC

Dude, they're standard politicians, pulling the oldest trick in the book.

I'm not exactly fond of scapegoating. And it bothers me that both Trump and Sanders are getting a free pass and pretending that they're outsiders due to the nature of their campaign contributions... when they're seriously pulling the same shit tactically. They simply blame somebody for all the troubles and then offer insane policy decisions.

Trump is simply doing it on the far right (Muslims are evil, Mexians are rapists, lets build a wall), while Sanders is performing the scapegoat song-and-dance on the far left (I swear, Bernie Sanders says the words "Big Money Corporation" as often as Trump says his own name). Its utterly disgusting, and I'm ashamed that this strategy is working for the both of them.

A "Big Money Corporation" is no more the devil than Obama is the antichrist.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:44 pm UTC

Large corporations generally aren't evil, but they are amoral and will engage in exploitative and anticompetitive behavior unless the public will actively prevents it. What disgust me are things like regulatory capture and the fact that almost all new income in this country has gone to the rich, not the modestly social democratic proposals that Sanders has in mind.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 9:50 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:Large corporations generally aren't evil, but they are amoral and will engage in exploitative and anticompetitive behavior unless the public will actively prevents it. What disgust me are things like regulatory capture and the fact that almost all new income in this country has gone to the rich, not the modestly social democratic proposals that Sanders has in mind.


As I noted earlier, I'm for a progressive tax code and don't necessarily mind "income redistribution". The fact of the matter is, diminishing marginal utility of money is real, so taxing the rich to give to the poor is a sound economic policy to some degree. ($100 to a man making 100k/year is worth less than $20 to a man making 20k/year. The 20k/year guy will buy food or shelter with an extra $20 in his pocket... while the $100k/year man will spend thousands to upgrade his car package to include heated leather seats).

So yes, we need to have a progressive tax code to some degree, and we need sound economic policies to counteract the power of exponential monetary growth.

That doesn't mean I agree with a 50bps transaction tax however. Because that's just dumb.

Spoiler:
I'm also against minimum wage, but this argument is much harder to make and far more theoretical (Besides, Hilary and O'Malley were also for $15 minimum wage, so Sander's support for it doesn't stick out).

In short: making low-paying jobs illegal is a quickest way of increasing the unemployment rate and increasing poverty. We need policies that encourage wage growth without explicitly making low-paying jobs illegal. Its the poor who work low-paying jobs, and getting rid of their jobs is simply burying our heads in the sand and ignoring them.

Progressives like to imagine that banning low-paying jobs is great for low-income people. Progressives look at pictures like this and are horrified... When in fact, the Philippino poor are perfectly content to sift through garbage to look for things to sell. Banning dumpster diving in areas of the Philippines has harmed the poor more than helping them.

Banning trash sifting is to destroy the way of life for the poorest Philippinos, who have no other means of making a living. All they do is move to the next city, where they can continue to do the task that they know how to do (ie: look for recyclable trash in a dump). A true economic plan would call for re-education, building of factories or better forms of labor for these people. Or maybe even creating tools to help these people do their job more efficiently.

In America, banning a low-paying job like a Walmart Greeter will simply hurt the poor. The poor need more jobs, and I honestly don't see how making low-paying jobs illegal helps them at all.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:03 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm also against minimum wage, but this argument is much harder to make and far more theoretical (Besides, Hilary and O'Malley were also for $15 minimum wage, so Sander's support for it doesn't stick out).

If we had a guaranteed basic income then I would absolutely agree that there would be no need for a minimum wage. Until that happens though, it’s the best we’ve got.

Also, last I checked Hillary only supported a $12 minimum wage.
wee free kings

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:04 pm UTC

If maybe Sanders supported guaranteed basic income instead of $15 minimum wage, then maybe I'd be able to lend him my support. IIRC, some fringe Republicans / Libertarians are toying with the idea of negative taxes for the bottom tier of earners and I definitely think that's a sound policy.

------

EDIT: Hilary has made $15 minimum wage a goal in New York, but has only campaigned for $12 minimum wage on the national stage. It looks like I was confusing her local policies with her national policies. Sanders wants $15 minimum wage nationally.

In any case, Sanders has such deep, frothing distrust of corporations. And yet he trusts corporations to keep workers rather than just fire everybody when $15 minimum wage hits? I don't have the trust of corporations that much. I expect corporations to just fire workers until they're profitable. Unless Sanders can explain why he thinks Walmart Greeters will be paid $15 / hour instead of just getting fired, he's going to be actively hurting the people who need the money the most.

Which goes back to my complaint that Sanders is utterly ignorant about how America works. No Walmart Greeter is ever going to be paid $15/hour. And no (currently employed) Walmart Greeter is going to enjoy being fired due to a rising minimum wage.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6347
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:16 pm UTC

What Republicans supports that? Last I heard, rubio said his negative income tax plans was a fluke. What he take meant was a non refundable tax plan which does not give anything to poor people unless you had income to deduct in the first place.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:18 pm UTC

sardia wrote:What Republicans supports that? Last I heard, rubio said his negative income tax plans was a fluke. What he take meant was a non refundable tax plan which does not give anything to poor people unless you had income to deduct in the first place.


I missed out on the word "Fringe" and edited it into the post. It looks like I didn't edit it in fast enough. Fringe Republicans / Fringe Libertarians are definitely talking about this negative tax however.

No one on the national stage supports negative income taxes, as far as I'm aware. But I hear that talk far more from the right than I do from the left. The left are about "guaranteed basic income" or "raise minimum wage". All have the same goal in mind, but I think the negative tax approach is the most sound. Theoretically anyway.

The IRS is already designed to give money back to Americans (Tax refunds happen regularly, and the IRS is reliable at issuing refunds. Any issues the IRS has are optimized and worked out by the next year. They're actually a good organization). We just give the IRS more money to give back to people and everyone gets the money as they file their taxes. (If you have negative taxes, you get a very big refund from the IRS). Seems simple enough.

Guaranteed Basic Income is next best, although it seems like the creation of a new government agency will be far less efficient than using the IRS for the task. And I've said my piece on minimum wage already.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Feb 27, 2016 10:25 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm also against minimum wage, but this argument is much harder to make and far more theoretical (Besides, Hilary and O'Malley were also for $15 minimum wage, so Sander's support for it doesn't stick out).

In short: making low-paying jobs illegal is a quickest way of increasing the unemployment rate and increasing poverty. We need policies that encourage wage growth without explicitly making low-paying jobs illegal. Its the poor who work low-paying jobs, and getting rid of their jobs is simply burying our heads in the sand and ignoring them.


There's absolutely no empirical evidence to back that up. At most, we see short term unemployment until the market adjusts itself, something that can be countered by having gradual minimum wage increases at regular intervals rather than large increases at irregular intervals. That is, you can increase minimum wage by 15.6% per year over five years, rather than 100% in one year. On top of that, jobs can be created by infrastructure spending - combining those two can completely negate the negative effects of a minimum wage increase. At some point, further increases will lead to inflation wiping out most of the gains, but that's also a short term problem and you can simply stop increasing the minimum wage once you reach that point, and index it to labor productivity.

The other options are a unconditional basic income that is enough to live off of, which will have the same effect on wages by greatly increasing the bargaining power of the workforce, or wage subsidies (negative income tax/guaranteed minimum income) which encourages keeping less productive jobs that we would otherwise be able to do for cheaper overseas or automate locally, hurting our economy in the long run. You are much better off increasing the minimum wage or implementing an unconditional basic income (the latter being politically unfeasible).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sat Feb 27, 2016 11:45 pm UTC

Tangentially: Rick Tyler, the man who was too much of a scumbag even for Ted Cruz, has immediately been hired by that "progressive" bastion MSNBC. They're reminding me why I haven't watched them in years.
Exit the vampires' castle.

ijuin
Posts: 819
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ijuin » Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:09 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Mutex wrote:Plus the fact that corporations spend huge amounts of money interfering with politics for their own ends makes it easier to believe too.


I'm for campaign finance reform and revisiting Citizens United. But the tool of the corporation has made America one of the greatest nations on Earth. Its very efficient at raising money, building factories and creating jobs in the middle of a desert. Only the combination of the Stock Market ($500 Million raised in equity through TSLA stock offerings), large banks (loans for the rest of the $5 Billion of the factory), highly educated population, and straight up elbow grease can make these sorts of things.

The key is sound policy that prevents corporations from using their massive money-intensive operations from supplanting democracy. Citizens United was a backwards step in that direction, but if anything, the current election has shown that money isn't everything. The most well-funded Republican dropped out of the election (Jeb!). And both Bernie Sanders and Trump have raised (and spent) significantly less money than their rivals.


If corporations are people, then they should be subject to the same donation limits that individuals are. If an individual is only permitted to donate X thousand dollars, then a corporation should also be limited to that same X thousand dollars.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sun Feb 28, 2016 12:14 am UTC

sardia wrote:What Republicans supports that? Last I heard, rubio said his negative income tax plans was a fluke. What he take meant was a non refundable tax plan which does not give anything to poor people unless you had income to deduct in the first place.


Not now, but I think Milton Friedman supported those back in the day
lol everything matters
-Ed


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests