2016 US Presidential Election Thread

[MonkeyMan576]

Is Hillary Clinton inviting criticism by making gun control and race relations a central campaign issue?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-meet ... ction.html

[MonkeyMan576]

But she has a huge lead. You would think the logical political strategy would be to coast in, and not invite unneeded attention. It's almost as if she can't help herself. What's really to gain by centralizing these issues? Democrats already are known to have a more populist position on guns and race than Republicans.

[MonkeyMan576]

The GOP hasn't won a presidential election race since 2004. Don't you think they already need to do that?

[MonkeyMan576]

Yes, but Bush won in 2000 and 2004 due to a supreme court decision, winning with a minority of the popular vote, a weak opponent in 2004 and a large wave of patriotism stemming from 9/11. You could argue that Obama got similar help due to the Anti-Bush sentiment in 2008, but I think any political analysis would say that the GOP has an uphill battle this election.

[MonkeyMan576]

Monkey have you considered a career in marketing?

How's that?

[MonkeyMan576]

You used facts in a misleading way which prompted me to use a product that I've already got a better version of. You're a natural.

What was midleading?

[MonkeyMan576]

But she has a huge lead. You would think the logical political strategy would be to coast in, and not invite unneeded attention. It's almost as if she can't help herself. What's really to gain by centralizing these issues? Democrats already are known to have a more populist position on guns and race than Republicans.

were you alive in 2008?

Yes, barely.

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?

I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement

YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.

What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?

TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.

Here is another article supporting my argument:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... reme-court

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire. That would be the responsible thing for them to do. Both have served with distinction on the Supreme Court for a substantial period of time; Ginsburg for almost 18 years, Breyer for 17. Both are unlikely to be able to outlast a two-term Republican presidential administration, should one supersede the Obama administration following the 2012 election. What’s more, both are, well, old: Ginsburg is now 78, the senior sitting justice. Breyer is 72.

Is such a suggestion an illicit politicization of the Court? No. It is simply a plea for realism, which is often difficult to muster in the face of the idolatry that suffuses popular thinking about the justices and their role in American democracy. There is no question that the justices are often strategic in deciding when to depart the bench, even if they are quiet about their aims.

This is kind of a nonsense stat for predictive purposes. Is it REALLY less likey? If I flip a coin 4 times, it is unlikely to end up heads every single time. But if I've flipped 3 heads it's still 50/50 i'll get a heads next time.



Unless you can come up with a cogent theory on WHY this is a phenomenon, given the small sample size (43 presidents [not counting Cleveland twice]) this isn't very convincing.

I'm not saying that it's less likely statistics wise, I'm saying that it's unlikely for it to have happened to 3 consecutive presidents, and I wouldn't be surprised for something to happen to the next sitting president from a historical perspective to cause them not to be reelected, especially considering Bush and Obama have had issues towards the end of their presidency.

The Republican party is stronger than the mainstream media makes them out to be, so, for example, if Hillary is elected, it all depends on the viability of the 2020 GOP candidate.

[MonkeyMan576]

if you want lasting impact of a presidency, then you should be talking about SCOTUS

this this this this this

this is why 2016 is a fight that Dems/humanity can't afford to lose

This is pretty much a moot argument, it is said every election.

its only a moot argument when SCOTUS isnt ridiculously politicized
The current bench is just doing whatever the fuck it wants

Its also not a moot argument given the ages of some very key positions on the court

True, but SCOTUS judges do what they can to avoid retiring during an administration of the opposite ideology. Of course if they die there is nothing they can do.

And SCOTUS has always been politicized. This will happen when the president nominates the judges and the judges are a check and balance against the other branches as much as a judicial body.

For Example, the last 10 SCOTUS Retirees(as opposed to having died or resigned)

Justice - Nominating Prez - Retirement Prez
David Souter - Bush I - Obama

Sandra Day O Conner - Reagan - Bush II

John Paul Stevens - Ford - Bush II

Lewis F Powell Jr - Nixon - Clinton
Harry Blackmun - Nixon - Clinton

Thurghood Marshall - Johnson - Clinton

Byron White - Kennedy - Clinton

Potter Stewart - Eisenhower - Reagan

William J Brennan Jr - Eisenhower - Bush I

John Marshall Harlann II - Eisenhower - Nixon

So 7 of the last 10 justices to retire retired with a presidident of the same party of the president that elected them.

Also, never in US History has 4 consecutive presidents won reelection and finished both terms(Clinton>Bush>Obama>???), so history is against that happening this time.

Are you really of the opinion Stevens and Brennan were rubbing their hands going "I better resign now or a LIBERAL might take my seat"?

I am of the opinion that justices don't want their retirement to cause a major shift of ideology on the court.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/24/s ... retirement

YOUNG: But what about this idea that justices consider who their replacement might be? Ruth Marcus(ph) writes about the Washington Post, and she says of course justices can't be insensitive to the identity of their successors because they care about their work, and they want to care about who will pick up or, as she writes, dismantle it. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist has said in the past that it's not 100 percent true that they calculate, but sometimes they do.

What about that calculation, thinking about who the president will be when they retire?

TOTENBERG: Well, I think that they must think about it, but they also think about themselves and their contributions and whether they want to stay and think they have something yet to contribute, perhaps even more to contribute.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying the justices don't care about who replaces them, I'm saying that if those justices were basing their retirements off getting a President who agreed with them, those two were so exceedingly liberal they certainly wouldn't have done so during Bush II. Sometimes elderly people need to retire. Let's not mistake correlation with causation, especially given there are only two choices.

I was making a general statement, not saying it qualifies for every justice. Some obviously more so than others.

[MonkeyMan576]

Which happens first, the confederate flag is removed from all state flags or a third party candidate wins the presidency?

[MonkeyMan576]

So were the democrats. The main parties used to be the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists(Prior to the civil war).

[MonkeyMan576]

I meant Federalists, not Whigs. Momentary brain fart.

[MonkeyMan576]

Apparently US Voters are encouraging Donald Trump for his stupidity and he is rising in the polls.

[MonkeyMan576]

An artificially high minimum wage just incourages inflation and discourages businesses from hiring new employees.

[MonkeyMan576]

Apparently Donald Trump is ahead in a GOP poll.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/9/8924481/donald-trump-poll

[MonkeyMan576]

This kind of reminds me of Ross Perot in '92(although he was a more serious candidate), where Perot had the lead as an outsider then dropped out because of the pressure.

[MonkeyMan576]

Presidents are underpaid during their administration so I don't begrudge them making money afterwards.

[MonkeyMan576]

Racism will probably always exist, as long as race exists, but progress is obviously being made. 95% of people are not racist, probably, and social progressives are being more vocal than before, just as with gay marraige.

[MonkeyMan576]

My point is that yes, while the structure of society is unfair to blacks(wealth, justice, etc), while people should not tolerate it like they do, I think on the whole individuals understand minorities as people and are not as racist as in previous decades. It takes time to change an unfair system that's indoctrined in policy and government structure like it is.

[MonkeyMan576]

Also women typically have more work to do at home so they are less willing to go after promotions, etc. Also society gender roles make it difficult for women to be comfortable in leadership position, and men have traditionally held more leadership roles, which is why there are more male CEO's, no female presidents, etc.

[MonkeyMan576]

Racism will probably always exist, as long as race exists, but progress is obviously being made. 95% of people are not racist, probably, and social progressives are being more vocal than before, just as with gay marraige.

I don't think its fair to say it'll always exist.

it hasn't even always existed? ancient rome for example = not racist

That's because ethnicity was not an important part of social structure in ancient rome.

[MonkeyMan576]

Women are 8 times less likely to negotiate for higher wages. I think that's a pretty big contributing factor in why they get paid less. (Being averse to negotiating for wages myself, I can correlate this one.) Not sure how that kind of problem can possibly be addressed either, since an employer is content to pay you as low as they possibly can.

We're also never going to see a world where men and women are distributed completely evenly across every single industry. Because of that you can't really compare wages because you're comparing apples to oranges rather than apples to apples.

Well, I'm sure men who speak up being perceived as assertive and women doing the same being perceived as bitchy has nothing to do with it.

Just because we probably won't see equality doesn't mean we can't identify the SOURCES of why there is equality and see what we can do about them.

I'm sure this is true, but it's not evil corperations trying to save a buck by screwing women over.

[MonkeyMan576]

Trump is basically sabotaging him self with all the stupid crap he is saying. He doesn't look presidential at all and he is alienating (pardon the pun) two thirds of his constituancy. I don't know why the press feels obligated to take him seriously when he doesn't take himself or anything else seriously.

[MonkeyMan576]

Not really they are just infatuated with his celebrity and there is an anti Washington section of the voting block that will back anyone that's famous and non political. A majority of gop voters don't think trump will be the eventual nominee but he is still leading thevpolls. What does that tell you?

[MonkeyMan576]

Just an odd political note, if Joe Biden decides not to run for President, it will be the first time since 1929(Curtis and Dawes), two consecutive vice presidents have not announced a presidential run after their vice presidency.

[MonkeyMan576]

I think Clinton is too much of a product of Washington to have a female running mate. She will want a male running mate to help with the male vote. Probably a rising star like Al Gore was for her husband. Probably a governer. Maybe Hawaii's David Ige? He would help with the minority vote and male vote.

[MonkeyMan576]

I don't think she needs a moderate running mate, the Clinton's are already known as political moderates.

[MonkeyMan576]

I would say Ohio or Florida's governors since they are key swing states, but they are both GOP. If she wants a swing state VP, Virginia's Terry McAuliffe, or Montana's Steve Bullock might be a possibility.

[MonkeyMan576]

Clinton/Jeb!

Well, Bill and George W are buddies now.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not Christian but I support the first ammendment.

[MonkeyMan576]

Kucinich is 69 years old, he's past his political prime.

[MonkeyMan576]

Politicians will take their money, but I don't think Clinton wants another Dick Cheney.

[MonkeyMan576]

I think Rosie O'Donnell's responding to Donald Trumps comments as being indicative that a "war on women" is going on in the country is overestimating the importance of Donald Trump.

http://news.yahoo.com/rosie-odonnell-ad ... RzZWMDc2M-

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm guessing Bush's war chest will win out in the end, and then he'll lose to Clinton, possibly with a minority vote if Trump jumps to the Tea Party. Clinton has lots of baggage and scandal is around every corner, but the Clinton's are pretty immune to scandal.

[MonkeyMan576]

Liberals aren't all a rainbow of awesomeness.

Specifically when it comes to the economy and national defence.

[MonkeyMan576]

Anything that reduces the role of government is a good thing, including tax cuts.

Obviouisly the robin hood mentality is more popular in the polls, but there's a reason why politicians in general have low approval ratings.

[MonkeyMan576]

Anything that reduces the role of government is a good thing

oh well i guess you won't be needing these police and fire departments then

We can keep those, just not the $18 Trillion debt.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not an economist, so I'm not the best qualified to say specifically, but I would say foriegn aid, national defence, social security, and welfare need to be looked at closer. Sure hard choices need to be made, but if nothing is done, 100 years from now there won't be a United States.

We are paying $800 Billion a year in interest payments, thinjk how many peoiple that could help if we could control our spending and eliminate the debt?

Every family in America operates on a budget, their country should too, imho.

[MonkeyMan576]

Nothing wrong with disagreement, so no reason to keep your mouth shut.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying that government shouldn't help the poor at all. I'm saying that the government should encourage people to help themselves more.

[MonkeyMan576]

What does that mean in practice?

It means there should be more incentive based programs rather than handouts.

whaat? you mean its not actually helpful to spout idealism?

Not with an $18T defecit.

[MonkeyMan576]

Yes, everyone on welfare is looking for a job.

[MonkeyMan576]

Almost any spending can be justified if you try hard enough, but sometimes tough decisions need to be made.

[MonkeyMan576]

Sanders is leading Clinton by 7 points in New Hampshire. But Trump is also running away with it so I guess you can take that with a grain of salt.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... d-the.html

[MonkeyMan576]

Well, the New Hampshire primary was a big part of Bill Clinton's upset win in 1992.

[MonkeyMan576]

I don't see Sanders doing well in the Southern states, but he could do well in the Northern states similarly.

[MonkeyMan576]

Probably because Clinton is female and Sanders is an old white male.

[MonkeyMan576]

Eh, I'd rather get a raise because I'm profitable for my employers and qualified rather than because the government says so.

[MonkeyMan576]

I think TSO's point is that liberals tend to seek out like minded opinions to tell them they are right rather than to seek honest political debate, especially on internet forums, where liberals are in the majority. It doesn't make an opposing viewpoint invalid.

[MonkeyMan576]

they would all vote Green.

I didn't know we could vote for colors! Man I've been doing things all wrong.

You're probably too young to remember this:).

[MonkeyMan576]

Kmd - speaking as someone who seems to share similar views to you - you're completely wasting your time trying to make a point here. The people who post in this thread are ultra-liberal to a point. They all vote Democrat, and in fact they don't even like centrist democrats, as evidenced by the heavy Sanders support. They all believe that all minorities are being discriminated against systematically, especially black people, women and transgenders, and if you don't agree it's because of your white privilege. There should definitely have been an indictment in Ferguson, welfare state is great, defund the military, down with cops. And so forth.

I agree with what you're saying, but I'll probably be the only one.

did you just call women minorities

Women are protected by the equal rights ammendment so by definition they have minority status.

There are two definitions for minority.

1) A group that has a numerical disadvantage.

or

2) Groups that have been supressed by a majority group. In this case, women have not enjoyed rights such as voting and land ownership in the past, and thus are given minority status.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's not so much that poor people couldn't do the same things rich people could, or are less deserving of wealth, but a lot of poor people get trapped in a cycle of dependancy, where they feel like they don't have a say in their success. But many wealthy people in the United States are self made, so to speak, and deserve credit for the wealth they have built for themselves.

I feel for your situation, sthar8, but I disagree that most poor people don't have a chance to get out of being poor. Most employers will readily promote someone that works hard and shows dedication to their job and talent rather than someone that feels like they are there based on entitlement. Perhaps your own attitude is the reason for your lack of success, not the upper class pushing you down.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's not so much that poor people couldn't do the same things rich people could, or are less deserving of wealth, but a lot of poor people get trapped in a cycle of dependancy, where they feel like they don't have a say in their success. But many wealthy people in the United States are self made, so to speak, and deserve credit for the wealth they have built for themselves.

I feel for your situation, sthar8, but I disagree that most poor people don't have a chance to get out of being poor. Most employers will readily promote someone that works hard and shows dedication to their job and talent rather than someone that feels like they are there based on entitlement. Perhaps your own attitude is the reason for your lack of success, not the upper class pushing you down.

So what exactly is it that I need to do to pull myself up by my bootstraps?

What about the kids? What are they supposed to do to just be less dependent?

This is me actively resisting the impulse to tell you to go fuck yourself for implying that my life would be better if I weren't so inferior.

Learn new skills, network at your job, avoid negative influences in your life, things like that.

Anyone who thinks they do every possible thing to better their lives is lying to themselves.

I would give you more detailed advice, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate for a public thread. And you probably wouldn't want it anyways.

You sound like the sort of person that blames other people for your problems rather than trying to work to improve your situation.

not trying to judge, but your attitude is completely wrong, and part of the issue with welfare.

[MonkeyMan576]

If you are telling a kid that he has no chance at success in his life, no matter what his circumtances, then you are doing him a disservice. Sure, a homeless kid has less chance at success than a kid of a CEO of a fortune 500 company, but there are lots of rich kids that fail and lots of poor kids that succeed.
I'm not going to tell my kids they can't be doctors or lawyers because I make $10 per hour.
Moreover, two people that were childhood friends of mine were signifiantly less off than my parents were when we were growing up, but he ended up being a laywer and she is a medicial technician. I'm sure they make well over $100K while I am making less than $30K. I don't blame society for this, and I don't say it's luck. I have made some poor decisions at some points, and I have made a decision to put my family before my career. And I don't don't say that they don't deserve their success, because they worked hard to be where they are, I'm pretty sure it wasn't luck.
But it's wrong to look down on other people that have been successfull, or look down on other people that still believe in The American Dream, because you have had bad things happen to you. Sure, some people are lucky, but there are a lot of people that work hard for their success and deserve every penny of it.

[MonkeyMan576]

grants and loans, I'm sure.

[MonkeyMan576]

I never said there shouldn't be students loans or that they were handouts.

I'm saying that at some point spending needs to be cut down if revenue is less than what you are spending.

And some of those spending cuts probably won't be popular and might not be completely progressively minded.

[MonkeyMan576]

There will be more starving children 100 years from now if we do nothing.

It's always easier to look for a short term solution rather than trying to fix the long term problem.

It doesn't make it the best thing or the right thing.

[MonkeyMan576]

I've never seen any evidence to suggest that success is really more about luck than hard work.

Everyone's situation is different, so there's no point in making generalizations like that.

The fact is if you want to succeed in your own life, and you're not born into wealth, you can either cry about how life is unfair or you can try to improve your situation. Some people may succeed, some people may not but I don't see how the existance of a class based society is evidence that the liberal economic view is the correct one. I am generally in favor of smaller government and more individual responsibility, but I have never said I want people to starve or that some government programs aren't necessary.

Surely some liberal economic programs have been successfull, such as the New Deal and Reconstruction, and I will be the first to admit conservatives are wrong on most social issues, but the amount of waste in government and the refusal to govern our own budget or adhere to any long term spending plan leads me to believe that the family model is a better financial system than defecit spending as a long term strategy. At some point, our country is going to pay for not living within our means.

[MonkeyMan576]

If you are telling a kid that he has no chance at success in his life, no matter what his circumtances, then you are doing him a disservice. Sure, a homeless kid has less chance at success than a kid of a CEO of a fortune 500 company, but there are lots of rich kids that fail and lots of poor kids that succeed.

False equivalence. There are far more rich kids who succeed than poor ones who do, and pretending otherwise is ignoring the problem. Moreover, nobody was saying that you should tell your kids they can't succeed. We're telling them that they should be supportive, because more people will succeed if we all pull together than if we pretend that success is a matter of individual hard work.

If you are saying that success is all luck and not based at all on hard work, then you are basically telling kids whose parents aren't rich that they can't succeed.

I'm not going to tell my kids they can't be doctors or lawyers because I make $10 per hour.

And if your kids don't want to be doctors or lawyers? Maybe your son wants to be a short order chef. Maybe that's what makes him happy, but it's not going to make him rich. Are you going to lecture him about how being poor is his fault and he should work harder? And if your son can't be a short order chef if he wants, who will make our hash browns? Or is that career reserved for lazy people who deserve to be poor?

Not at all, if they are happy flipping burgers than I am fine with that. But the point is that they should do what makes them happy, not feel like 99% of career paths are closed off to them because of the class they were born into.

But it's wrong to look down on other people that have been successfull, or look down on other people that still believe in The American Dream, because you have had bad things happen to you. Sure, some people are lucky, but there are a lot of people that work hard for their success and deserve every penny of it.

And it's wrong to look down on people who haven't been successful, or to look down on people who realize that "The American Dream" is not something that's attainable by the entire population, just because bad thing have happened to them. Some people are lucky, but there are a lot of people that work hard for their success and will never receive a reward for it.

I'm not saying people don't work hard. If half of what his assistants have said about him is true, Bill Gates was one of the most ridiculously hardworking men in America. But he had a lot of advantages that other people didn't have, and that played a huge part in getting him to where he got. A man could be just as hard working and just as diligent as Bill Gates was, and still wind up dirt poor because the situation he was born into required him to spend his life making short term decision so his kids could eat that day rather than putting together a long term plan for future wealth. But we have the ability to give people opportunity, so that they can achieve success no matter their starting circumstances. And the GOP looks at that and says "Nah, fuck them. They're just mooching because they're lazy."

No one said there is a sure fire model to be successfull, and surely luck plays some part in life. I think most people in the GOP just want a more responsible spending plan, not to fuck over poor people. Most people in the GOP believe that the rich shouldn't be punished for being rich. Most liberals believe in a more socialistic economic model, so it's just a different philosophy. Many european nations have very high tax rates, and apparently most people that live there are very happy with that, but I think many American's would prefer to be taxed less and enjoy fewer government benefits. This is because of our history as a colony and being oppressed by England, and being taxed without having government representation. So we value our economic independence. I don't think most American's would want a 50% tax rate, even if it meant the elimination of poverty.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's true that I am lucky to be born into a nation with one of the largest and most reliable economies in the world. If I was born in Africa or South America I probably wouldn't have the same opportunities. And surely if you are starving kid in Africa you don't have much chance of becoming a billionaire. But life is about making the most of your opportunities, doing work that you love(if you have the chance to do that), and valuing the blessings you have like your family, friends and health.

My youngest son died when he was 3 days old and he'll never get to experience any of that, so I understand that better than anyone.

I want the poor to be taken care of, from my perspective the government's history of poor money management makes them the last person I would want to do that.

[MonkeyMan576]

So monkey, we should keep the government programs that allow poor people to borrow huge amounts of money they might never be able to pay back in order to go to college, but cut the programs that feed them until they're old enough to have a legal income?

I think you need less generalities and more specifics.

I'm not an economist. All I know is we need to spend less.

[MonkeyMan576]

Well, it hasn't been solved in 250 years as an official nation. Do you think deficit spending has made things worse or better? Do you think if we have a $100T deficit in 50 years things will be worse or better?

[MonkeyMan576]

That doesn't make any sense.

If social services cost more money than the taxes that are paying for them than it is contributing to the debt.

[MonkeyMan576]

That's just it though, people don't want high taxes.

[MonkeyMan576]

The problem with the liberal ideology is that it assumes the upper class is out to get the lower class and that class warfare is inevitable. Stop worrying about what other people have and try to fix your own problems.

This isn't incompassionate, it's wanting more people to better themselves and not to be dependant on government.

[MonkeyMan576]

There's nothing wrong with acting in self interest. This is basic capitalism vs. socialism thought. There needs to be some income reinbursement but it needs to be controlled.

[MonkeyMan576]

I have argued against points, look at my posting history.

Just because you disagree with my points doesn't make them irrelevent.

[MonkeyMan576]

That's what unemployment is for. You should be able to find a job eventually. There's no excuse for not working, ever, if you are able bodied.

[MonkeyMan576]

Wealth gaps are going to exist in a capitalist society. There is going to be an upper class and a lower class. Yeah, it sucks if the dice rolled bad for you and you were born to a poor family. But that doesn't mean that the socialist mindset is superior to the capitalist one. There's a reason governments like the USSR, China, and Cuba aren't known for taking care of their people. The 40%-50% tax rate that exists in Europe and Canada isn't going to work in the USA. So, given that most people in the USA want lower taxes, obviously spending has to be cut at some point, no matter how unpopular spending cuts are.

[MonkeyMan576]

uh, canadas tax rate isn't 50%, what.

If you live in Nova Scotia and make over C$150K you would be paying a 50% rate including provincial taxes.

other provinces would be between 40%-50%
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

[MonkeyMan576]

The point is that the socialist economies of Canada and Western Europe have higher tax rates than the US, and that most of the US population would not be in support of those levels of taxes.

[MonkeyMan576]

I believe the capitalist system is superior to the democratic socialist system. When it comes down to it it's just a matter of opinion and niether side has facts 100% on their side.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not against democracy, capitalism is usually democratic. I was comparing the democratic socialism to the despotic socialist systems in USSR and China.

[MonkeyMan576]

Yes, I have lots of people in my family as well as friends that have worked hard and become sucessfull. So probably my viewpoint is different than someone who has seen only poverty in their family.

[MonkeyMan576]

I've already said I'm not well off myself, but I think the fact that I can see how political systems effect both the poor and the rich gives me an objective viewpoint.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour weeks, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour weeks, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour weeks, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm not saying it's fair, but I don't think it's fair to tax the rich at unfairly high rate either, no matter how much less work they put in. There are a lot of rich people that put in 80 hour days, and there's no reason they should have to pay a 50% tax rate.

[MonkeyMan576]

Sorry for the triple post, internet issue.

Yes, I think the tax system should be more equal, but I don't think it should be unfairly progressive.

I would be in favor of a flat tax.

[MonkeyMan576]

I meant weeks obviously.

[MonkeyMan576]

It depends on your definition of "hurt". Obviously 30% of a $30K income is going to be felt more than 30% of a 100K income. But at what point of a progressive tax do you say enough is enough?

[MonkeyMan576]

I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.

[MonkeyMan576]

I wouldn't have a problem at 35% for the rich, but not 50%. People deserve to keep some of their income.

Are you in favor of rolling back the tax rate back to 1950 levels?

It would depend on what those are.

[MonkeyMan576]

So, apparently 20% of ESPN employees registered on Ashley Madison are female. If this is indicitive of the site as a whole, the female users must really get around, or there must be a lot of empty handed male users.

[MonkeyMan576]

http://www.businessinsider.com/100-espn ... son-2015-8

[MonkeyMan576]

I would say 35% is about right.

[MonkeyMan576]

Well, men spend their money on stupid things all the time. *shrug*

[MonkeyMan576]

It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.

[MonkeyMan576]

It's based on faulty information anyway and both Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are dead.

I didn't ask if you personally agreed with the war.

The war happened (and is still happening) regardless of your personal feelings. Money was borrowed to pay for that war.

The US can't just ignore the financial obligations because of buyer's remorse. You can't just propose a flat tax and force the poor to pay for that war.

That doesn't mean we can't be financially responsible.

[MonkeyMan576]

Again, the idea that successfull people should be punished for things like hiring tax experts.

I would be in favor of closing tax loopholes though.

And everyone needs tax code reform, imho.

[MonkeyMan576]

I think the point is that it shouldn't be up to government to "even the playing field" for the rich and the poor. Having an unfairly high progressive tax is basically saying the rich shouldn't be rewarded for success. It's saying that there aren't a lot of rich people that are willingly generous with their money. This just isn't the case, in America you are rewarded for success, not punished. There is a balance that can be struck between taking care of the poor and allowing people to keep their hard earned money.

[MonkeyMan576]

Liberals won't be satisfied unless there is a 95% tax on the rich.

[MonkeyMan576]

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican, so I don't think I always "vote against my status". But even if I were, the idea that the poor should always vote democrat is like saying that women should always vote for women.

[MonkeyMan576]

Hey, I am Wazzu alumni, class of 2001.

Go cougs!

[MonkeyMan576]

And I don't think when people donate money to universities paying administration and execs is what they have in mind.

[MonkeyMan576]

Yeah; I have no problem with extra-curricular activities that are actually for students, but college football (and basketball, and some other major college sports) are basically just unpaid minor-league teams that are loosely associated with collages. For the most part they're huge money-sinks, and totally distract from the main mission of the colleges, and the way the athletes are treated is unethical.

You are aware that college football pays for all the other sports in most schools right?

[MonkeyMan576]

This according to espn.

Revenue among FBS football programs ranged from a high of $103.8 million at Texas to a low of $3.6 million at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. The average FBS football program brought in $25 million, with a median of $19.9 million.

[MonkeyMan576]

http://sportsologist.com/college-athlet ... he-number/

There is a lot of discussion about football keeping athletic departments alive. Yes, football is one of only two sports (men’s basketball being the other) that ANY university reported as being profitable. At the same time, however, only 57% of football programs reported being profitable. Thus the other 43% of football programs are still part of the problem.

So, I can imagine most of the "major conference" football programs are highly profitable and subsidize the other sports programs. The smaller colleges, not so much. But the smaller colleges work on a much smaller budget. It's like comparing McDonalds to your local burger joint.

[MonkeyMan576]

Back to the presedential election, I wonder if Joe Biden is using a late entry as part of his political strategy. In his indecisive demeanor, he may be setting himself up to be the "underdog candidate" and the "reluctant outsider candidate". He actually has some advantages over Clinton, he hasn't taken some of the political hits that Clinton took during the 2008 primaries, he has 8 full years of vice presidency experience, and he comes across as a more "humanistic" candidate than Clinton. Of course, going against the Clinton political machine is no easy task, but I think he could be more of a serious oppposition than some are predicting, and has a possibility of winning(unlike Sanders).

[MonkeyMan576]

I really haven't heard too much of that, myself.

[MonkeyMan576]

Jeb vs. Hillary is almost 80% likely imho. Trump has a small chance at a nom but almost none at winning. The only reason he is doing well now is no one takes the gop seriously.

[MonkeyMan576]

80% at jeb vs hillary vs. Other matchups, not 80% at jeb winning

[MonkeyMan576]

I.e. Jeb vs sanders not happening, hillary vs trump not happening etc

[MonkeyMan576]

Bush is the likely gop nominee. He has the name recognition, money, and party support the others dont have

[MonkeyMan576]

I mean both clinton and bush are favorites vs any other potential nominees.

[MonkeyMan576]

I am going to have to disagree that Bush is the most likely Republican candidate to go forth.

Who do you think is most likely then, and why?

[MonkeyMan576]

Rubio is being picked as the favorite to ultimately win the GOP nomination now for the first time, overtaking Bush.

[MonkeyMan576]

Power Rankings:
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Marco Rubio
3. Jeb Bush
4. Bernie Sanders
5. Joe Biden
6. Ben Carson
7. Donald Trump
8. Carly Fiorana
9. Rand Paul
10. Ted Cruz

[MonkeyMan576]

Apparently Ben Carson's brain surgeon liscence was revoked. If that doesn't damn a person's candidacy I don't know what would.

[MonkeyMan576]

Aren't I stupid for believing the news! It showed up as a Yahoo news article so I assumed it was real.