2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's really not a race, I'm sorry. Clinton has it locked up. The media want to sell it as a race and Sanders has excited me and his adoring supporters, but it's all locked up in terms of the demographics and primary map. If you believe otherwise you can buy Sanders contracts at ~19c on the dollar on Intrade alternatives.

No question about it Clinton is still very much the favourite. We will know one way or another come early March and it will likely be over all but officially come St Patricks day. But the fact is that as things stand Sanders continues to gain on Clinton and if he can pull off an upset win in Nevada which clearly is a distinct possibility now he heads into super Tuesday on March 1 dead even with Clinton which would be astonishing really.

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Economic justice is a much more of a concern for increasing numbers of people especially in the land of the free where you have to pay for everything.

The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.

"[If] a man doesn't have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists."

Martin Luther King Jnr.

Keep on concentrating that wealth though and the people will not seek economic justice - they'll simply take control and make sure it happens whether you or anyone else like it or not. Ultimately economic justice is in your interests far more than it is a minimum wage worker because you stand to lose far more than somone who 'just exists'.

Akrasia

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Economic justice is a much more of a concern for increasing numbers of people especially in the land of the free where you have to pay for everything.



Keep on concentrating that wealth though and the people will not seek economic justice - they'll simply take control and make sure it happens whether you or anyone else like it or not. Ultimately economic justice is in your interests far more than it is a minimum wage worker because you stand to lose far more than somone who 'just exists'.

That's the thing. If the wealthy were satisfied with just a little bit less, but still more than most people could ever dream of, then the rest of the population Could still buy into the American dream. But they're just so greedy and entitled want it all for themselves.

It's a parody of itself n many ways

Junkyard Tom

Akrasia wrote: »

But they're just so greedy and entitled want it all for themselves.

Adam Smith's 'vile maxim of the masters of mankind'.

All for ourselves and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. As soon, therefore, as they could find a method of consuming the whole value of their rents themselves, they had no disposition to share them with any other persons. For a pair of diamond buckles, perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchanged the maintenance, or what is the same thing, the price of the maintenance of a thousand men for a year, and with it the whole weight and authority which it could give them.

Wealth of Nations. Book III. Chapter IV, p. 448.

The private/financial sector is sitting on trillions of dollars. It's just sitting there, hoarded, and doing nothing. The Super-rich have an estimated $21tn stashed offshore.

And yet we have financial sector bailout beneficiary billionaire Blankfein lecturing the public on poverty reduction programs and public services.

Something's gotta give.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strelok

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

and why on earth are they leaving it doing nothing when they could be investing it?

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Read here.

at least £13tn [$21 trillion] – perhaps up to £20tn [$31 trillion] – has leaked out of scores of countries into secretive jurisdictions such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands with the help of private banks, which vie to attract the assets of so-called high net-worth individuals. Their wealth is, as Henry puts it, “protected by a highly paid, industrious bevy of professional enablers in the private banking, legal, accounting and investment industries taking advantage of the increasingly borderless, frictionless global economy.

www.forbes.com

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah yes as usual, nit-pick to divert attention. Let's just say its not lifting all boats - probably the opposite.

While incomes at the top – from wages and investments – have skyrocketed, the wages of the typical worker have stagnated: the median male worker earned roughly the same amount in 2010 as his predecessor in 1964. As a result, whereas from 1948-79 two-thirds of aggregate income growth went to the bottom 90 percent, from 1979-2012 all income growth has gone to the top 10 percent of the income hierarchy. In other words, since 1979, the bottom 90 percent of families, as a whole, have seen their income decline in real terms.

www.socialsecurityworks.org

Anything to say on economic justice?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ah yes as usual, nit-pick to divert attention. Let's just say its not lifting all boats - probably the opposite.



Anything to say on economic justice?

But now we have central heating and computers so it's ok

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Only meaningful notion to you you mean and one that dove-tails perfectly with your own self-interest. You're predictable if nothing else.

By the way:

However, Locke held that one may only appropriate property in this fashion if the Lockean proviso held true, that is, "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others".

Regardless,

An example of an economic justice institution is progressive taxation - a system of taxation where tax percentage increases as the base amount increases. The goal of progressive taxation is to remedy income inequality and to provide funds for social services, public infrastructure, and education. Earned income credit, affordable housing, and need-based federal financial aid for college students are other examples of economic justice institutions.

www.investopedia.com

Junkyard Tom

strelok wrote: »

and why on earth are they leaving it doing nothing when they could be investing it?

See there's investing and there's speculating. Rebuilding crumbling infrastructure? That's investing. Gambling on property-price bubbles? That's speculating.

Gambling on property price bubbles and being bailed out when you lose? That's Wall Street.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No presidential candidate is against taxes or "income redistribution" as you call it even Gary Johnson.

Black Swan

Across most recent South Carolina polls Trump leads in the mid-30 percentiles, followed by Cruz and Rubio in the teens. The Republican primary occurs 20 February, while the Democrat primary occurs 27 February. In the latter case, Clinton ranges from 55-61 across recent polls, while Sanders ranges 31-41. If the polls have any merit, they suggest a Trump and Clinton win.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So how come Sanders is polling better than Trump then?

ancapailldorcha

20Cent wrote: »

So how come Sanders is polling better than Trump then?

I'm disinclined to afford much importance to polls. Sanders supporters are mostly younger people who are much less likely to actually turn up and vote than their older counterparts.

Junkyard Tom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I doubt it. Where are you getting this cliched rubbish from? Fox news? The Wall Street Journal? Despite the relentless propaganda Americans (all of us) are subjected to one AP survey found:

68% said wealthy households pay too little in tax ... 56% favored substantial new taxes on immense capital gains of the rich (including 46% of Republicans). New taxes on banks were winning by a margin of 4-to-1.

The [AP survey's] findings echo the populist messages of two liberal senators Warren of Mass and Sanders of Vermont. In other words when it comes to tax policy the popular will is with one politician who says 'the system is rigged' and another who claims that the US is becoming 'a plutocracy.. of the rich, for the rich and by the rich'.

books.google.ie

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ugh. It's honestly hard to say which would be the worse president.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And Sanders leading Cruz by a 12 point margin.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Completely False!

(and all the 'likes' really says a lot. :rolleyes:)

How so?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Heaven forbid a Trump-Cruz or Cruz-Trump GOP ticket November 2016! If this was to occur, it may function to bring the Republican conservatives and populous, sensationalist appeal voters together to oppose Clinton.

Manach

One advantage of a Cruz victory will be that he can pardon Hillary after the FBI indictment lands on her. :rolleyes:

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If Trump wins, is there a possibility for a new war occurring before and during the 2020 election year, given that wars increase the likelihood of presidential reelection (e.g., GW Bush)?

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

One advantage of a Cruz victory will be that he can pardon Hillary after the FBI indictment lands on her. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that the FBI will indict Hillary Clinton during this election year, while Obama Administration controls the Executive Branch of US Government, which includes the FBI and the US Justice Department? And if Hillary wins, it will be her Administration.

I doubt that Cruz can win against Clinton. Although I find Hillary boring and unimaginative, I find Cruz a real sleeper to listen to. Cruz better get an exciting running mate if nominated, or he is lost.

Manach

Black Swan wrote: »

Do you really think that the FBI will indict Hillary Clinton during this election year, while Obama Administration controls the Executive Branch of US Government, which includes the FBI and the US Justice Department?.

Leaving aside the substantive issue of whether or not Clinton broke some of the more draconian/byzantine US security laws*: my understanding that the days of a politicised FBI that was overseen by figures such as J.Edgar are long gone. If there is a reasonable chance of wrongdoing, then the FBI will perform their duty as laid down by legislation : they do not have the luxury of ignoring certain laws if inconvenient unlike the current administration.

* which BTW have seen the largest number of people sent to prison for disclosing information during Obama's term, (offhand from reading Glen Greenwald's book).