2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, gerrymandering notwithstanding, the future makeup of both houses is far from certain: the GOP only holds 56% of the House.

And, let's face it, gerrymandering is a serious problem.

Firstly, the extent of medical bankruptcies in the US has been vastly overstated for political reasons. Your claim above that "most personal bankruptcies in the US are as a result of medical expenses" reflects a tendentious 2007 study by Himmelstein et al -- and the "et al" includes none other than liberal firebrand senator Elizabeth Warren, a passionate advocate of Obamacare who might not exactly be the most disinterested co-author on an academic study of medical bankruptcy.

Writing in the journal Health Affairs, David Dranove and Michael L. Millenson of Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management looked again at the data supplied by Himmelstein et al, and found that medical bills are actually a contributing factor in just 17 percent of personal bankruptcies. Furthermore, figures released by the Department of Justice indicate that medical bills (pre-Obamacare) accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among bankruptcy filers who gave medical bills as a reason for filing. Ninety percent of bankruptcy filers had medical debts of less than $5,000.

Even in Canada, which has a single-payer healthcare system, 15% of personal bankruptcy filers cite medical reasons as the primary cause. That's just marginally smaller than the 17% indicated by Dranove and Millenson, and indicates that the single-payer solution proposed by Sanders is not going to make medical bankruptcy "go away."

And yet...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, until they don't. There will be elections every two years during what could be an eight-year presidential term.

So you're saying that after we solve the age-old problem of gerrymandering, and then elect enough Democrats for a House majority, Sanders can begin implementing his agenda? I'm not holding my breath, frankly.

Well, no. Gerrymandering is, as I'm sure you'll agree, a problem that needs fixing in its own right, not just for the purposes of implementing anyone's agenda.

Or, at least, any one politician's agenda. It would certainly go some way towards aligning both parties' agendas with the desires of the American people.

Are you prepared to retract your claim above that "most personal bankruptcies in the US are as a result of medical expenses"?

Cheerfully. I assume, in turn, you'll acknowledge the evidence that a single-payer system can indeed dramatically reduce medical bankruptcies?

walshyn93

Literally the first round of voting and the Clinton campaign are caught cheating.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Literally the first round of voting and the Clinton campaign are caught cheating.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4578575/clinton-voter-fraud-polk-county-iowa-caucus

The headline says that, but I've watched the video and I'm at a loss as to how the headline was arrived at.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I should have been clearer. I was specifically referring to Republican candidates, not members or the party as a whole.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

The headline says that, but I've watched the video and I'm at a loss as to how the headline was arrived at.

Taken from reddit because this caucus stuff gives mes a headache

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/43sexj/cspan_stream_clinton_precinct_chair_lied_about/

Final delegate count was Clinton 5, Sanders 4. It was very close. Here is the breakdown:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O'Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
After this, the groups realign and another count was conducted. Sanders's group leads performed a FULL recount of all the supporters in his group. The Clinton team only added the new supporters gained to her original number from the first round of voting. I did not see another recount of the Clinton supporters taking place. It would have been very hard to miss that activity.
SECOND ROUND: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Taken from reddit because this caucus stuff gives mes a headache

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/43sexj/cspan_stream_clinton_precinct_chair_lied_about/

Final delegate count was Clinton 5, Sanders 4. It was very close. Here is the breakdown:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O'Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
After this, the groups realign and another count was conducted. Sanders's group leads performed a FULL recount of all the supporters in his group. The Clinton team only added the new supporters gained to her original number from the first round of voting. I did not see another recount of the Clinton supporters taking place. It would have been very hard to miss that activity.
SECOND ROUND: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total

The three people who make up the difference appear to have been accounted for (they apparently left); they wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome anyway; and the group voted overwhelmingly not to have a full recount. I'm not seeing the fraud.

As a matter of interest, would you agree that gerrymandering is a serious problem that urgently needs to be addressed?

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Clinton/Cruz

Well The Economist article I read got it right, but closer that they thought. Great showing by Sanders, if he wins NH he'll be right in the public eye as a realistic alternative to Clinton. Trump did fine and NH seems a cert for him. Rubio is probably the happiest, good showing here.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Defence was prioritised in sequestration.
plus, the Nunn–McCurdy Amendment curtailed a lot of mismanagemed programmes of late, primarily the Zumwalt class destroyers for example getting their funding cut.

My question had nothing to do with defence though. I asked did other departments like Social Security or justice face similar 10% cuts from 13-16?

Defence gets 54% of discretionary spending so we already know it is high priority.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Neither do I.

...why do we need another major healthcare overhaul under Sanders? What's wrong with Obamacare that we need to replace it after just 6 years, when some of its provisions have not even been implemented yet?

ACA goes some way towards the idea of universal healthcare, but for those who believe that the provision of healthcare is a responsibility of government, it's still pretty half-assed. Not as half-assed as healthcare being a privilege rather than a right, but still.

Yes, I get that not everyone agrees that the government should do healthcare. I'm answering the question as to why a candidate would want to replace Obamacare.

Can it be done? Maybe not. Does that mean that a candidate shouldn't run for election on the basis of wanting to see it happen? I know that I'd rather vote for someone whose goal is universal healthcare than one whose goal is to build a wall to keep brown people out.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll give you this much: both of them would have made better presidents than either Trump or Cruz.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

The three people who make up the difference appear to have been accounted for (they apparently left); they wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome anyway; and the group voted overwhelmingly not to have a full recount. I'm not seeing the fraud.

As a matter of interest, would you agree that gerrymandering is a serious problem that urgently needs to be addressed?

If you're not seeing the fraud I suggest looking harder. The info is there if you want to look.

I don't like the way you ask these questions to try and catch me out on hypocrisy. I personally don't know how it would ever be resolved without some final redistricting that would inevitably be gerrymandered. In a two party system my main problem with gerrymandering would be that it protects the two party system rather than benefiting one or the other in the long run.

walshyn93

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most people consider them to be reasonable now, Romney had the benefit of being right. But it didn't stop people going after them and trying to paint them as loons and many people believed it at the time. It's Saul Alinsky all the way for the Democrats. They'll do the same for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump now, anyone who gets in front the knives come out.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

If you're not seeing the fraud I suggest looking harder. The info is there if you want to look.

That's a hand-waving answer if I ever saw one.

I don't like the way you ask these questions to try and catch me out on hypocrisy.

That's harsh. I'd like to think that gerrymandering is seen as a problem by everyone except incumbents, and I'm canvassing opinion to test that theory.

I personally don't know how it would ever be resolved without some final redistricting that would inevitably be gerrymandered.

There's nothing inevitable about gerrymandering. The solution, in broad brush strokes, is to have districts drawn up by non-partisan (or, at least, bi-partisan) bodies in a transparent manner. Ireland's Constituency Commission is one example.

In a two party system my main problem with gerrymandering would be that it protects the two party system rather than benefiting one or the other in the long run.

That's fair. My main problem with it is that it denies the electorate the representation they're supposed to be guaranteed.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a hand-waving answer if I ever saw one. That's harsh. I'd like to think that gerrymandering is seen as a problem by everyone except incumbents, and I'm canvassing opinion to test that theory. There's nothing inevitable about gerrymandering. The solution, in broad brush strokes, is to have districts drawn up by non-partisan (or, at least, bi-partisan) bodies in a transparent manner. Ireland's Constituency Commission is one example. That's fair. My main problem with it is that it denies the electorate the representation they're supposed to be guaranteed.

I think a better way would be by scrapping the first past the post system.

I would never in a million years trust a bipartisan or independent commission in America because I don't believe there is such a thing. I think what would happen is it would get stacked with people from one group or another and would only have the impression of being neutral which would be even more dangerous than one where the conflict of interest is known.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

I don't think Romney was classed as a loon, just a bit out of touch.

McCain was fine, Palin did the main damage there.

ancapailldorcha

Would someone mind explaining to me how the nominations work? I thought it was a simple matter of party members in each state choosing their preferred nominee. It looks like it is a bit more complex than that.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In turn, that's fair. It's a shocking indictment of the state of American politics, but it's fair.

We've had eight years of the GOP in the legislature having pretty much no political aim beyond opposing Obama at every turn. Everything - everything - took a back seat to that agenda. Now, it seems, voters are being presented with a similar prospect for the future: vote for the woman we've wasted millions of dollars trying to blame for a terrorist attack in Benghazi, or for the moderate (by the standards of pretty much everywhere except the US) democratic socialist whom we'll paint as a communist and revive the ghost of Joseph McCarthy to attack.

The GOP have, unfortunately, discovered that their policy of damaging the country in order to undermine the president hasn't (yet) hurt them too badly in the polls. You point out quite rightly that the GOP will make it their life's work to oppose everything that Sanders stands for, but I haven't seen any indication that they'll cheerfully go along with President Clinton's agenda either.

That, for me, partly explains why the 17-29 demographic, who have little political knowledge or experience, are voting enthusiastically for Sanders, while older people, who understand the political system better, are opting for Clinton. They appreciate that in politics, having achievable ambitions is often better than having utopian ambitions.

Why should ambition be achievable? Surely the point of ambition is to reach beyond the merely possible?

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Would someone mind explaining to me how the nominations work? I thought it was a simple matter of party members in each state choosing their preferred nominee. It looks like it is a bit more complex than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election

Bit of reading for you.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If there are many reasonable republicans how come not one of the republican candidates will come out and say in public that Evolution is a fact and that it should be taught this way in school.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

Even the 'reasonable' republicans have to pretend to be creationists because the balance of power in the party is held by creationists, a belief that they hold so strongly that they will not vote for someone who disagrees with them.

Quin_Dub

Akrasia wrote: »

If there are many reasonable republicans how come not one of the republican candidates will come out and say in public that Evolution is a fact and that it should be taught this way in school.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evolution_and_the_gops_2016_candidates_a_complet_guide/

Even the 'reasonable' republicans have to pretend to be creationists because the balance of power in the party is held by creationists, a belief that they hold so strongly that they will not vote for someone who disagrees with them.

I think the issue is that the "card carrying" republicans (e.g. Those entitled to vote in the primaries) have been overwhelmed by the ultra-conservative tea-party types.

Hence the reason that the Presidential primaries all play up to that audience....but once they win the nomination they then get accused of being flip-floppers (see Romney) as they try to appeal to the more mainstream Republican voter.

The average voter in the street that has voted the Republicans into majorities in both houses are not representative of the current "party membership"..

That's the massive disconnect that the Republican party is struggling to fix..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Absolutely. The problem is that the system, which is designed to prevent overreach by any one branch of government at the expense of another, has instead created legislative gridlock at the expense of the people.

My question isn't so much "why doesn't the US ban guns?"; more so "why doesn't the US introduce more widespread background checks, when this is something that the overwhelming majority of Americans want?"

The answer is a combination of the corrupting influence of money in politics - the amount of time elected representatives are forced to spend pandering to donors is nothing short of disgraceful - along with the polarising influence of extreme positions.

If Obama wants to extend background checks, it doesn't matter that he's voicing what the people want: the legislature will reflexively oppose him because, well, that's pretty much all they have done for his entire tenure, and also because vested interests want them to.

There's a lot to admire about the American system of government, but there's a lot to criticise, and a lot that really, really needs to change.

InTheTrees

K-9 wrote: »

I don't think Romney was classed as a loon, just a bit out of touch.

McCain was fine, Palin did the main damage there.

Romney never seemed very serious, then there was the "folders full of women" comments and the damming video from inside the private donors meeting.

McCain was stumbling even before he picked Palin as his VP, and his campaign really imploded when the Stock market crashed. He was completely out of his depth and dithered for about a week before coming up with his plan to suspend the presidential race.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.