News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

Calliegirl said:
I do like some of Bernie's ideas, I just don't think they are feasible. I would love nothing more than for everyone to get a free college education. I believe a real education is the best way to combat hate and bigotry, and for the country (and the world) to prosper, I just don't think it's a possibility presently, nor are some of his other ideas.

Someone worked out what it would take to make his promises into reality (if he weren't going to be blocked by the Republicans to begin with), and yes, it shows it can't be done. I am worried that a lot of people are going to be voting based on a bunch of pie in the sky promises that can't possibly come true and we're going to be stuck with The Donald as president.

It's a long article but worth reading to the end. For me, it explained things very well, but I'm not an expert in economics, so I admit, I might be missing something important that was left out.

Dear Bernie: I Like You, But These Red Flags Are Too Frequent to Ignore
Click to expand...

If what you say is true, that these things can't be done, then why is every other major, civilized nation on earth already doing them? What makes you say it can't be done here, when it's already done, everywhere else? What makes the US so uniquely backward?

You can find articles to support any point of view. Here are a few links to counter your own. There are economists, and there are economists.


170 Top Economists Pen Letter Backing Bernie Sanders' Plan To Break Up The Biggest Banks

Top Economist: Sanders’ Economic Plan Would Make U.S. Economy Boom Like Never Before

Why Bernie Sanders’ Proposals Would Spur Economic Growth: Robert Reich

Single Payer System Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program


'If Sanders became president — and was able to push his plan through Congress — median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

'In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO’s forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation’s $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders’ second term.

'Sanders’ plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy — including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave — would juice GDP and productivity. Also, he would raise the minimum wage, as well as shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations.

'“Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders’ program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity. It will “promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality.”'

Yes, it will take the backing of Congress, and the American people, to get it done. If Americans simply want to cry into their sleeves and say, "We're not ready for this, yet," they deserve what they get. Sanders' proposals are not revolutionary; they are really quite common, and are a return to FDR's policies, which made our economy boom for us all. For decades now, the Republicans (with help from certain Democrats, like the ¢lintons) have been systematically dismantling the "New Deal," for their own profit. Bernie just wants us to return to the idea that, "The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself." I think we should listen.
 
Last edited:
It's looking a lot like Trump will be the Republican nominee. I think we'll see an interesting dynamic, especially if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee. Trump's promises regarding his policies if elected appears not so well thought-out. So there's a lot of attack vectors for the Dems. At the same time Trump appears to have a problem with women, and he's a loose cannon a lot of the time, so things can get really ugly. Well, I think I've said this already ...
 
Indian Summer said:
It's looking a lot like Trump will be the Republican nominee. I think we'll see an interesting dynamic, especially if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee. Trump's promises regarding his policies if elected appears not so well thought-out. So there's a lot of attack vectors for the Dems. At the same time Trump appears to have a problem with women, and he's a loose cannon a lot of the time, so things can get really ugly. Well, I think I've said this already ...
Click to expand...

I think Hilary can beat Trump. It's a Hilary-Cruz match up that keeps me up at night.

Why? because Evangelicals will come out in force if he's the nominee, and look who they help elect the last time...W
 
Last edited:
beancounter said:
A Republican controlled congress...
Click to expand...

That can change, overnight. The current "hostage situation" over Supreme Court Justice nominees could well cost Republicans their razor-thin advantage in the Senate. The loss of 4 seats for them would create a balance, leaving it to the vice-president to break any ties. 30 seats, out of 435, in the House Of Representatives would shift power to the Democrats and Independents.
 
Capstan said:
That can change, overnight. The current "hostage situation" over Supreme Court Justice nominees could well cost Republicans their razor-thin advantage in the Senate. The loss of 4 seats for them would create a balance, leaving it to the vice-president to break any ties. 30 seats, out of 435, in the House Of Representatives would shift power to the Democrats and Independents.
Click to expand...

In this polarized environment, the supreme court issue will not cost them their jobs.
 
Capstan said:
It really depends on voter turnout. Polarization is an illusion. The majority of the people do not want the government shut down.
Click to expand...
I think the people want the current party leadership on both sides to gtfo of Washington. I honestly can't believe the number of people backing Donald Trump for president (!)

Anyway off to read @Andy_T 's articles :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Capstan
ledboots said:
I think the people want the current party leadership on both sides to gtfo of Washington. I honestly can't believe the number of people backing Donald Trump for president (!)
Click to expand...

I think that's true. What seems apparent in the campaigns is that big change is the order of the day.

Just for the record, in the 3 states that have voted so far, Bernie Sanders has racked up the most actual votes, with (t)Rump in second place, and $hillary coming in 3rd. The two 'outsiders' are the ones being favored.
 
Well blocking the Supreme court nomination isn't the same as shutting the government down, but regardless, how many Republicans lost their jobs as the result of the last shutdown? People may complain, but when it comes time to pull the lever, the keep on re-electing the same politicians. And that's the ultimate objective of polarization. It's not an illusion.

Capstan said:
It really depends on voter turnout. Polarization is an illusion. The majority of the people do not want the government shut down.
Click to expand...

ledboots said:
I think the people want the current party leadership on both sides to gtfo of Washington.
Click to expand...
 
beancounter said:
Well blocking the Supreme court nomination isn't the same as shutting the government down, but regardless, how many Republicans lost their jobs as the result of the last shutdown? People may complain, but when it comes time to pull the lever, the keep on re-electing the same politicians. And that's the ultimate objective of polarization. It's not an illusion.
Click to expand...

Actually, both Houses of Congress were Democratically controlled in 2009, just six-years ago. Six-years doesn't seem like so much history to be overcome. Had Obama provided stronger leadership, it might have stayed that way. As I said, it really depends on voter turnout- more people actually pulling the little lever- rather than some concept that we're irrevocably divided. Things change.
 
Last edited:
Capstan said:
Actually, both Houses of Congress were Democratically controlled in 2009, just six-years ago. Six-years doesn't seem like so much history to be overcome. Had Obama provided stronger leadership, it might have stayed that way. As I said, it really depends on voter turnout- more people actually pulling the little lever- rather than some concept that we're irrevocably divided. Things change.
Click to expand...

It's well known that in off year elections, voters from the party in power tend to stay home and voters from the party out of power turn out in droves, which is what happened in 2012, giving the GOP a Congressional majority and strengthening their ability to prevent Obama from doing anything. It's quite likely more Democratic and independent voters will turn out in November in large numbers and change the party makeup of Congress.
 
Capstan said:
Actually, both Houses of Congress were Democratically controlled in 2009, just six-years ago. Six-years doesn't seem like so much history to be overcome. Had Obama provided stronger leadership, it might have stayed that way. As I said, it really depends on voter turnout- more people actually pulling the little lever- rather than some concept that we're irrevocably divided. Things change.
Click to expand...

Actually, what you're describing is cyclical changes in public attitude, not a permanent change. In other words, the divide still exists, just that a more voters of a certain party votes in years where one party has been in power for a while.
 
beancounter said:
Actually, what you're describing is cyclical changes in public attitude, not a permanent change. In other words, the divide still exists, just that a more voters of a certain party votes in years where one party has been in power for a while.
Click to expand...

That is correct. Which is why it would be so easy for the Republicans to lose control of Congress, and make possible the changes we're discussing. Difference of opinion (polarity) is not an all-powerful factor in determining election results. A single election can turn everything around, and frequently does.

Anyway, are we really discussing polarization, or just the current Congress's policy of refusing to make any sort of compromise? They're not really the same thing.
 
Sadly, I don't think that the Republican members' of Congress stated intent to not consider ANY one whom Obama may nominate for the SCOTUS is going to affect how many people vote in the upcoming elections. It may be a huge issue to the Democrats and to us having an online conversation, but most people don't seem to care.

I do wish we could refrain from modifying people's names in order to make them into insults. It strikes me as so juvenile that it degrades the entire discussion.
 
Mischief said:
Sadly, I don't think that the Republican members' of Congress stated intent to not consider ANY one whom Obama may nominate for the SCOTUS is going to affect how many people vote in the upcoming elections. It may be a huge issue to the Democrats and to us having an online conversation, but most people don't seem to care.

I do wish we could refrain from modifying people's names in order to make them into insults. It strikes me as so juvenile that it degrades the entire discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't think all members of the Republican party are extremists, and it's impossible to know how many of them may be dismayed by their own elected officials' refusal to properly consider issues, or how many of them may be willing to cross party lines (vote Democratic) to counter what is essentially a boycott of reason. The elected Republicans' abandonment of what in my view (and perhaps others) is intelligent responsibility may be alienating their own people, and may ultimately spell political suicide for themselves.

I took to using 'euphemisms' for people's names while posting on facebook, so their printed names wouldn't trigger prompts to articles about them, a tactic that shouldn't matter much here, so I'll try to do it less in future, in the interest of social correctness, but, while I believe words are important, I also think actions speak louder than words. It's something Bernie himself likely wouldn't do, and that's one more reason I'm for him: I wouldn't mind seeing someone in office who's better than myself. I can't say that about any of the others.
 
Top Bottom