Rama Set

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #360 on: March 03, 2016, 01:15:55 PM »
Romney is winning by a landslide

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #361 on: March 03, 2016, 01:27:00 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2016, 01:30:37 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7672
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #362 on: March 03, 2016, 01:48:46 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)
Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #363 on: March 04, 2016, 12:51:23 AM »
i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.

What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.

Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.

Which one is the logical candidate, then?

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #364 on: March 04, 2016, 02:36:19 AM »
correction: i was wrong about the debt numbers.  i thought our total federal debt was at ~$10 trillion, but it's nearly $20 trillion.

Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.

What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.

The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.

i'm not saying that congress could never ever cut any spending at all.  i'm saying that it's highly improbable that congress will pass this tax policy.  i don't think congress will pass a budget that immediately cuts spending by 25%, and i don't think congress will pass a budget that so drastically increases our debt.  nothing congress has done in my lifetime gives me any faith that either are possible, let alone both.

i agree that cutting spending is a productive way to reduce our debt, but that's not entirely the issue.  as per your source, trump's tax plan would reduce federal revenue by $12 trillion in ten years, but the revenue gained from economic growth over that time is only ~$2 trillion.  i agree that debt isn't intrinsically bad, but this particular plan is a net-cost, not a net-benefit.  it would increase the rate at which our debt grows with respect to gdp (which is currently negative).  if we aim to reduce our debt, then this plan is significantly worse than the status quo.

even if trump could somehow get both his tax cuts and massive budget cuts through congress, then we'd still just be back to even with regard to gdp and spending.  the opportunity-cost of all of that is awful.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 05:12:42 AM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #365 on: March 04, 2016, 02:46:05 AM »
Trump released his healthcare plan today.

   
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7672
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #366 on: March 04, 2016, 05:44:23 AM »
Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.

Which one is the logical candidate, then?
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.



Trump released his healthcare plan today.

   
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.


I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #367 on: March 04, 2016, 07:11:18 AM »
Judge Andrew Napolitano warns "She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity," adding that "they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone."


Napolitano argued that the revelation that former Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s private email server in 2009, is reportedly being offered immunity means he will likely be called to testify against someone much higher on the “totem pole.”
 
Pagliano will likely be asked how he was able to “migrate a State Department secure system onto her private server.” He then presented this theoretical question: “Mr. Pagliano, did Mrs. Clinton give you her personal Secretary of State password to enable you to do that?”
 
“If he answers, ‘yes,’ we have an indictment for misconduct in office as well as espionage. She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity,” Napolitano added.
 
The Judge explained that only a federal judge can grant immunity and will only do so if a sitting jury is ready to hear testimony from the “immunized person,” suggesting the investigation is well on its way to a possible indictment.
 
“We also know they are going to seek someone’s indictment, because they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone,” he said.


Other officials have a different view.


A former State Department inspector general who served in that capacity from 2005 to 2008 said Hillary Clinton will never be indicted for her email server scandal because A, the State Department itself would be implicated and B, she’s being shielded from prosecution by four very powerful Democratic Party women.

Those women, he said, were Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, the head of the criminal division at the department, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and even White House aide Valerie Jarrett.

Krongard said the case would likely fade, but even if those four women took the referral, the most they would pursue would be a plea-bargain for misdemeanor counts, the New York Post reported.


Howard Krongard, in an interview with the New York Post, said Clinton was never actually assigned a state.gov email address, and that in itself shows the department was aware and at least tacitly approving of her private email system.

Krongard also said it was highly unusual for the inspector general of State position to remain unfilled for the entire tenure of Clinton’s term at the department, from 2009 to 2013.

“This is a major gap,” he said. “In fact, it’s without precedent. It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG.”

One role of an inspector general is to ensure government entities aren’t committing fraud, waste and abuse; another, however, is to make sure government officials aren’t violating communications security provisions.

“It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,” Krongard said, the New York Post reported.


Trump has hinted that Clinton might be criminally indicted, and it is safe to speculate that he is not pulling this out of nowhere, but rather that he is hearing it first hand from powerful people in the USDOJ and the FBI.


http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/


Cruz and Rubio must address now the economic issues in a more direct way, in order to win more voters to their side.

Trump was not able to address any of the accusations that were brought to him, during the Detroit debate; he even refused to release the New York Times tapes to the public.


It is obvious that a civil war is coming to the United States (the catalyst will be a stock market collapse; this time around the Fed will not save Wall Street).

Will this revolution start in the northern states or in the southern states? That is, at the time this civil war breaks out, will the President be a Democrat or a Republican?


*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7672
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #368 on: March 04, 2016, 07:58:11 AM »
Does being inditd on criminal charges or even found guilty proclude you from being president?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #369 on: March 04, 2016, 09:31:40 AM »
Back in the summer of 2015, Trump had plenty of advantages over Hillary (Clinton's support for the Iraq war, charges of mysogyny that could not be brought against Trump [not by Hillary], Clinton's sudden changes of position).

But now, 8 out of 10 Hispanics view Trump unfavorably; the KKK comments will bring most of the Black vote over to the Democratic side; and Trump has lost most of the support of the Catholic vote (without which no Republican can get into the White House).

Nor can he portray himself any longer as a successful business man who will bring prosperity and abundance to the country: now we have the Trump university scam and the looming tax returns issue.

If the New York Times tapes are made public, it is all over for Trump.


The following excerpt is from Current Affairs (Nathan Robinson):

Trump's various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it.

Trump can't clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.
 
Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans.





*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #371 on: March 04, 2016, 12:03:38 PM »
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.

What proves this to be the case?

I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.

It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.

If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 12:07:56 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7672
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #372 on: March 04, 2016, 12:23:44 PM »
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.

What proves this to be the case?
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not. 

The support is largely based on "He will stop them".  See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.

Quote
I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.

It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.

If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge.  What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Saddam Hussein

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #373 on: March 04, 2016, 01:54:24 PM »
Andrew Napolitano sold his legal opinion to Fox News a long time ago.  I wouldn't take his analysis of any given situation as being indicative of anything other than what his audience wants to hear.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7672
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #374 on: March 04, 2016, 02:34:18 PM »
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #375 on: March 04, 2016, 09:00:08 PM »
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.

I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.


Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.

Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.


Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not.

I doubt he will actually ban Muslims, I do support it, however. Then again, I'd support the complete banning of religion if given the choice, so I'm not really the person to bother on this point.


Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge.  What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle

The plan isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 09:04:27 PM by Rushy »

Offline Dionysios

  • *
  • Posts: 280
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #376 on: March 04, 2016, 10:05:12 PM »
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
>second.

Sanders is not a socialist or radical unless compared to his competition, but he's by far the best option among the candidates.

Noam Chomsky endorsed Sanders and said that he doesn't have much of a chance. In corroboration of that I've since read that the reason Clinton has an advantage over him has nothing to do with the desires of common voters. Over the last two years her team has focused on getting the super delegates in each state to promise her their vote. The super delegates are a sizeable fraction of delegates in every state who are not elected by the voters at all. This fact heavily prejudices the elections in advance and is unsurprisingly omitted by major media because emphasis upon it would make people understand how the elections are a fraud designed to make it appear as if the establishment candidate defeated any challengers fair and square which is a lie.

That being said, Clinton is the lesser of two evils compared to Trump (who would indeed make for better late night TV).

So it's looking like Bill Clinton will get third and fourth terms as U.S. president. Republican presidents are not quite that clever.


*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8579
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #377 on: March 05, 2016, 01:59:06 AM »
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.

Edit: Ben Carson has officially suspended his campaign.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 04:18:26 AM by Rushy »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16081
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #378 on: March 05, 2016, 03:04:36 PM »
A dedicated lifelong Democratic voter said that voting for the Democratic Party is good for you
That's fantastic
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« Reply #379 on: March 05, 2016, 03:56:59 PM »
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.

trump and bernie are basically the same candidate.  "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."

imo imo tbqh
« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 04:01:19 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.