2016-08-13, 21:18 | Link #61 | |||||||
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is all OK of course because Trump wants to tear up our Iran agreement because it's a bad deal or something. Never mind all those other countries at the table opening trade up with Iran that we simply can't bully to do what we want! Quote:
Quote:
I would just like to believe that eventually they have to see he is wholly incapable of handling the job they're trying to elect him for. Like Bill Maher says, there's no shame in punting.
__________________
|
|||||||
2016-08-13, 21:37 | Link #62 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
|
Quote:
These are the same people stuck in the Cold War mentality; who think nation building and foreign interventions are a good idea. The same people who think less hostile relations with Russia is a radical idea. Yeah yeah, Putin's a dictator. Pretty hypocritical coming from a nation that has, and has had, no problems supporting dictators that agree with them. |
|
2016-08-13, 22:30 | Link #63 |
Sekiroad-Idols Sing Twice
|
Nobody informed ever said America's alliance with Saudi Arabia and Israel isn't hypocritical due to the latter two's actions, but it's still less dangerous than letting someone who can be baited by a tweet to have access to nuclear launch codes
__________________
|
2016-08-14, 00:39 | Link #64 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 41
|
With all due respect anyone among the few out there might have for Trump (but I have none for him whatsoever), he can shove that idea up where the sun doesn't shine. Moderators are in their own right to fact check everybody in any debate and with good reason, so he better abide by the rules or hit the bricks.
|
2016-08-14, 00:54 | Link #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Gary Johnson Polls: Libertarian Candidate Making
Major Inroads With Latino Voters As He Grows Closer To 15 Percent Threshold To Join Debates: "Gary Johnson has been rising in the polls, and a key move among Latino voters could help him reach the all-important 15 percent threshold. The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, Johnson has been aiming to be included in the presidential debates that will take place later this fall. To be included, candidates must garner at least 15 percent support in a group of five yet-to-be-named national polls selected by the Democrat and Republican-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates. There are growing signs that he could actually reach that point, leading to the nearly unprecedented step of a third party on stage for the debates this fall." See: http://www.inquisitr.com/3414211/gar...-join-debates/ ========================== Fusion to host town hall with Libertarian ticket: "TV network Fusion will host a town hall with the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket next week, it announced Friday. Fusion’s Jorge Ramos and Alicia Menendez will moderate the discussion with Gary Johnson and William Weld. The event will air this Wednesday, according to Adweek. Fusion has also invited Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to participate in interviews. Trump has agreed to speak with Ramos, but his campaign has not yet agreed to a date." See: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...rtarian-ticket |
2016-08-14, 02:15 | Link #66 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Holy Terra
|
Just exactly how much executive power will Trump/Hilary have if he/she is elected president?
From what I understood president can present an offer but it is up to senate and supreme court to decide will they uphold to it or not. So both of them are pretty limited with power. |
2016-08-14, 02:45 | Link #67 | |
Part-time misanthrope
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
Quote:
Deport them where? Your choices are war zones, areas in which they are killed for religious or political reasons or countries where the only perspective for them is to live in poverty and somehow don't starve. What this argumentation forgets, mostly on purpose, is that there are reasons why these immigrants came over to America (and Europe). As long as these reasons continue to exist these people will just come back after being deported. What supporters of this idea believe is that after deporting they just close the borders and don't let them back in. "If they don't die on our territory it's not our problem right?" Sorry but no, that's not how it works. Deporting immigrants is nothing more than a band aid that temporarily puts a lid on a symptom, doesn't do anything against the root and causes additional problems along the way. |
|
2016-08-14, 03:34 | Link #68 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Holy Terra
|
Especially when US is built by immigrants - illegal or not ( actually, visa system is established sometime after WW2 so all were pretty much illegal immigrants before WW2 ). It's a known fact that Americans do not exists as a nation since they are mix of pretty much every nation on Earth, whoever immigrated to US call himself eventually "American' and contributing part of his own culture along the way. Eventually making US culture and way of life as we know it today.
Never-mind that illegal immigrants are actually improving US economy since they are not registered anywhere and bringing profit to the men they are working for without him paying all benefits and taxes for them - profiting in the end themselves while illegals are happy with what they get from their manager. What I support is deportation of dangerous individuals. Robbers, murders, rapists, war criminals etc... They are the ones who bring bad names to hard working immigrants and in my eyes deserve deportation to whatever country they came from. So, in the end, US cannot solve hat problem easily. Unlike for Hungary for example that built gigantic wall over their southern borders and stopped almost all immigrants going trough it towards Europe. Countries like Japan and Russia are also handling illegal immigrant very successfully with certain laws and regulations. |
2016-08-14, 05:24 | Link #69 | ||||||||
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Quote:
My point of contention had to do with the short run assessment of Trump versus Hillary being as clear cut as you consider it to be. The Ryan/Rubio part of the party is talking about the long-run effect, as opposed to the short run. Quote:
Quote:
The only disagreement we have is who's worse: Hillary or Trump? I say the former and you say the latter. You consider it definite that Hillary is better than Trump and I consider it uncertain. My point is that the future of the US is on the line regardless of which of the two get elected, and the other 50% who are undecided are probably still deciding who's the lesser of two evils, as opposed to deciding between party and country. Your argument about Rubio holds true for the democrats too. If they had elected anyone but Hillary, Trump's campaign would have been sunk long ago. Quote:
Aside from that, note that the point I made was not just about the healthcare industry: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again, both of them are terrible candidates. We agree on that. If you choose to dismiss the Clinton Foundation allegations as conspiracy, then sure, Hillary is the lesser of two evils. If you consider the allegations to be very real, as I and many conservatives do, then you'll reach the same conclusion as I do that the choice between who the lesser of two evils is actually isn't that clear cut. Quote:
On the flipside, Hillary's support base among democrat voters is also fairly low, which supports my argument that the short-run assessment between Hillary and Trump is not clear-cut, and that there is genuine difficulty in deciding who is the lesser of two evils.
__________________
|
||||||||
2016-08-14, 06:47 | Link #70 | ||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Quote:
First the industry moved from the North to the South due to cheaper wages. Now, that industry either uses cheap, illegal labor, or it just moves offshore altogether. |
||||
2016-08-14, 08:08 | Link #71 | ||
Part-time misanthrope
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
Quote:
Basically you're saying that you have no qualms of deporting people back into (for example) a war torn country. Aside of moral, ethic and humanitarian issues this is thankfully not how it works. Quote:
Look, I understand that you're dissatisfied with the current situation. I'm too although not for the same reasons. We both agree that a solution has to be found, the sooner the better. But just deporting and be done with them is not one. |
||
2016-08-14, 08:38 | Link #72 | ||
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
The increase in the deficit after the recession can be linked to two factors that neither Obama nor any President would have had control over. First, tax collections declined precipitously as Americans were unemployed and businesses found themselves desperate for customers. For example, personal tax revenues alone fell nearly $400 billion between 2008 and 2009. Coupled with the decline in revenue was the increase in government transfer payments that were caused by "automatic stabilizers" like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other welfare programs. These programs weren't expanded legislatively after the recession. They grew because the numbers of Americans eligible for such programs greatly increased after the recession. Many economists would argue that the economy would have experienced even more substantial declines were it not for government programs propping up the incomes of millions of Americans hurt by the crash. Bush also kept the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "off-the-books" so those sums would not be attributed to the Federal deficit. Obviously this was simply a ploy since we still spent that money and borrowed to cover the costs. Obama returned the costs of the wars to the budget soon after taking office. Finally, the deficit as a proportion of GDP is about 2.5%, about the same figure it was in 2005. That's lower than the figure for most years under Reagan and Bush. If anything, the deficit should probably be higher to help stimulate domestic consumption. I'd like to see a $250-500 billion investment in infrastructure spending (bridges, roads, etc.) which would increase employment for less well-educated workers who have been hurt by globalization and Republican austerity programs. With interest rates near zero in real terms, there is no better time for the government to borrow and invest in programs that will have beneficial effects for the economy as a whole and put more Americans back to work. Remember that we'd be collecting taxes from those newly-employed people and from the various businesses who would see additional revenues. Quote:
I have to wonder what news sources you are relying on for these "facts." I recommend reading the actual poll reports. You can find them by following the links on the HuffPost Pollster page, http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-clinton.
__________________
Last edited by SeijiSensei; 2016-08-14 at 09:03. |
||
2016-08-14, 11:07 | Link #73 | ||||||
Bittersweet Distractor
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 32
|
Quote:
With Hillary, Republicans can do their typical obstructionist ass hole stuff that they keep doing with Obama while they feast on Hillary politically. Pretty good odds if you come out with the right candidate in 2020 you can take the white house. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Republicans will retain the house. The short term under Hilary is the status quo obstructionist time for you guys. The short term under Trump is a disaster for the country, and a disaster in the long term for your party.
__________________
Last edited by Reckoner; 2016-08-14 at 16:42. |
||||||
2016-08-14, 17:53 | Link #75 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 47
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2016-08-14, 23:48 | Link #76 | |||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
|
Quote:
Quote:
Illegal immigration needs to be halted, not just for the issues I mentioned before, but also to prevent human trafficking. Those who take the journey to illegally get into the US (or Europe, or Australia) are easily taken advantage of by human traffickers and criminals. Female migrants are often abused, raped and sold into sex trafficking. I also believe a stronger border is necessary to try and prevent drug smugglers and the cartels from spilling across the border. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/us/05arizona.html Along with all the other issues I've mentioned, we should not be having Americans get shot by smugglers or illegals on their own property thanks to a porous border. Quote:
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism Quote:
You believe Trump would use nuclear weapons, and again I won't judge you for that; however, I don't see it that way. He does, surprisingly, have a point in that the US shouldn't be making nuclear weapons if they're not going to at least use them; or more specifically, remind people you have them. Since he flaunts himself as a negotiator, his idea is to keep nuclear weapons as a card on the table to help in negotiations. Whether that's a good idea or not depends on who you ask. I view it as rhetoric, you don't. You're probably scared of Trump getting the US into a possible conflict; I'm scared of Hillary getting the US into a very likely conflict. Getting rid of ISIS is one thing, but wanting a reset of the situation in Sryia along with Cold War 2.0, is another thing entirely. Knowing Trump's view on costs and saving money, I'm personally hoping he might decide to just axe the US nuclear stockpile altogether. While the equipment being out of date isn't the problem (this is actually a good thing), incompetence in the military and lack of knowledge on to use them or properly handle them makes them a liability. |
|||||
2016-08-15, 06:38 | Link #77 | ||||||||
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Quote:
One issue is that the federal debt has been rising every year since Obama took office, even though the deficit has decreased compared to his first year. My position is that the level of debt (or debt-to-GDP) is the key measure, and not so much the deficit. Around half of the federal debt is currently owned by foreign investors, which makes it more dangerous than Japan's case, since majority of its public debt is domestically owned even though its debt-to-GDP ratio is around 200%. Would you consider this a problem? I'm not much of a Keynesian, unfortunately . I used to be one when I was younger but not anymore. I would rather lower taxes and scale back welfare, though I'm not in favour of a flat tax (yes, I know that the multiplier effect is theoretically higher with government spending than tax cuts, but I'm more fearful of the possible crowding out of private investment, nor do I trust governments to be prudent and efficient in spending the additional resources without creating further distortions). Quote:
Just to reiterate the context of my previous post, since my debate with Reckoner has gone very far off-tangent from the original point we were debating about [Reckoner should correct me if I'm misrepresenting his side of the argument]:
Since political economy is your area of expertise, could I get your opinion on this issue? Specifically, in your view, do the 77-82% of Republicans who support Trump do so simply to get conservative judges? Or do they support Trump because they truly believe that Hillary would be worse? (Note that I'm not so concerned about the merits of both candidates since we'll never reach a conclusion after arguing till the cows come home. As an Australian conservative, I'm mainly concerned about what conservatives in the US really think regarding the trade-offs between the two candidates.) -------------------------------- Quote:
Note that our debate is not actually about the merits of each candidate per se, but whether conservatives are supporting Trump because they are putting party before country. The former is only relevant in so far as it affects the latter. You may believe that conservatives are mistaken in the belief that Hillary is worse than Trump, but if this is the view taken by conservatives, then their support is nevertheless not putting party before country since the interests of both are not in conflict, at least in their minds. The obstructionism argument is a good point, but I wouldn't put it past Hillary to use executive orders to get her way, especially since she would have the USSC on her side this time. Just to clarify, would your position be reversed if the Republicans didn't have control of the House? Quote:
Quote:
This supposed "bickering" is therefore relevant to the main question because it talks about issues that influence the conservative vote. Note that the actual merits of the policies are not relevant to our debate. What's relevant is whether the candidates' policies affect the conservative perception. Quote:
It's not just about the emails either. It's the actions taken in terms of perjury, destroying of evidence, etc. A president who considers himself/herself to be above the law is more dangerous than one who acts within the law, and this is especially the case when the legal system has a series of checks and balances that would prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of a few as long as they were enforced. Quote:
More news came up over the last few days highlighting connections between the state and the Foundation: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/09/po...udicial-watch/ Even if you personally do not consider the above to be sufficient to create the perception of conflict of interest, do you consider that conservatives would not do so? On my part, I would not blame democrat voters for being concerned about Trump's supposed relations with Russia. Regardless of the merit of the argument, I would nevertheless conclude that they are putting country before party, even if it was being done in a misguided manner. Quote:
__________________
Last edited by frivolity; 2016-08-15 at 08:38. |
||||||||
2016-08-15, 09:29 | Link #78 | |||
AS Oji-kun
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 74
|
Quote:
Other than Bill Clinton, no recent American president has balanced a budget, so debt has grown fairly secularly over the period. See the linked graph for details. (By the way, I strongly recommend becoming acquainted with FRED, one of the best things to come out of the Federal Reserve. Quote:
Quote:
Religious conservatives in the anti-abortion, anti-gay movements probably hold their nose and support the philandering Mr. Trump because of Supreme Court nominations. And, of course, they see Clinton's life-long support for womens' rights and choice on abortion as anathema. The Republicans have attacked the Clintons for three decades or more now because, I believe, party elites feared that, under Bill, they would move the Democrats to the right and hive off support from moderate Republicans who were upset about how evangelicals and hard-right people had become so dominant in their party under Reagan/Bush I. So you get idiotic claims like the Clintons murdered their friend Vince Foster. The American right has a very active bunch of looneys who nevertheless have considerable influence, not just the Rush Limbaugh's of the world, but more dangerous people like Roger Stone and Alex Jones. Trump, sadly, considers these people informed, and their crap filters over into his pronouncements. The whole "the election is rigged" business comes largely from Stone, while the birther nonsense came from Jones. The fact that Trump finds these types of wacky conspiracy theories plausible is one of the reasons I see him as entirely unfit to be President.
__________________
|
|||
2016-08-15, 10:09 | Link #79 | |
Sekiroad-Idols Sing Twice
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2016-08-15, 15:26 | Link #80 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 41
|
For all what is said about Hillary's interactions with lobbyists, political and Clinton Foundation donors and business interests while serving as secretary of state, I'm surprised that there are not many "vultures" diving on what is quite a juicy piece of meat regarding Drumpf and Manafort's business with Oleg Deripaska.
Quote:
Democrats can and should use that piece of meat to launch a full-scale attack by openly speculating as to why Drumpf doesn't release his tax returns. On a strategic (not in the military sense though) point of view, it would be the perfect kind of solid counterweight to whatever talk is made about the e-mails. Well, if some people can go after e-mails, then I'm sure some people can also go after those physical files. Last edited by KiraYamatoFan; 2016-08-15 at 17:03. |
|
|
|