2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nobody is arguing that you shouldn't get to keep your post tax income. The debate is about what proportion of people's income should be collected in tax.

For the very wealthy, they are under taxed, and a tax increase, which would have zero practical effect on their quality of life, could be used to provide better public services for the benefit of the economy and the citizens of the state.

Akrasia

Manach wrote: »

The big chunk of it is so very gracious, if like the concept of "fair" it can be quantified, but fails to address both the widespread "waste heat" that such works both are prey to (Channeling Posner, Hayek, Sowell here). From political tithes to ineffective unions who donate to the right (ie progressive) causes,
> rail transportation still enjoys massive subsidies,
> US education is some of the worst in the developed world besides having so much money and so increasing politicised that home schooling is being seen as increasing viable,
> and as for kind words being said about the police that is practically unknown usually by a liberal politician hence the surprise and lack of response.

The concept of social contract has been in vogue since the Enlightenment - having its origins in attempt to persuad one that the Government knows best, the fons et origo of Big Statism. That is actually the people themselves who know how best to spend their money, to increase their wealth, what education courses to take and to protect the next generation is a concept which their liberal rheotoric seems incapable of grasping.

The social contract has never been about persuading people that 'the government knows best'
The fundamental point of the social contract is, that the people consent to be governed and taxed only on the basis that the government should represent the interests of the citizens.

The contract is that once the government stops representing the citizens, the people should rebel and install a new government. in a democracy, the mechanism for this is the election system

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Amazingfun

Overheal wrote: »

You say that Duke doesn't endorse him, then post a video that explicitly reports he is.

David Corn is an authority on what Duke says now, more than Duke himself, yeah? No, he is not. In fact, as is obvious, he hates Trump and was there with a clear agenda. Duke does speak out against what he terms "Zionist Supremacists", and since Corn is Jewish, maybe he takes that personally? I don't know.
Either way, it doesn't matter as David Duke did not endorse Trump in any official capacity, and has had nothing to do with the KKK (a fairly non existent entity in 2016 anyways) for close to 40 years. There is nothing to this "story", it is all just an attempt to hurt Trump and I pray it blows back in these liars faces today when Trump supporters get out and VOTE for him en masse:)

Then, the anchor even comments on the irony of picking what was one of the few black members of a Trump rally to pull a soundbyte from...

And my God, is that really how you plan to spin that video :rolleyes:

The reporter/station "cut the feed" of a Black Man sharing why he is a Trump supporter with the words "African Americans are not the majority of Trump supporters". Well, African Americans were not the majority of Obama supporters either. They are 13% of the population. They cut his feed because he destroyed their fragile narrative, lol.

I, and many, many others see it as more evidence of the absolute scumbaggery of the media, and their willingness to censor any Black who doesn't get with their "Trump is racist" program. It was hilarious, albeit in a sad and twisted type of way.

Anyways, happy Super Tuesday everyone!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The national wealth just refers to how wealthy a country is.

If you're in a functioning democratic state, it is reasonable to expect decent public services and a reasonable distribution of wealth amongst the citizens

if you're in a tin pot dictatorship, you expect that the cronies of the dictator privately own all of the assets in the nation and the citizens/subjects own little or nothing.

You act as though wealthy people have a divine right to ownership over their assets. in reality, those 'rights' are determined by the legal structures of the state they live in (or do business in). The government could introduce a wealth tax that would tax a percentage of someone's wealth and not just income, or they could increase inheritance and capital gains taxes to a very high level, or they can go the other direction, and introduce low taxes and loopholes that allow elites to shelter their assets beyond the reach of the tax collectors and put the tax burden on lower income workers.

Rights are not divinely given, they are based on the willingness of the society/state to allocate them, and defend them against attack.

You can claim an absolute right to property ownership, but if the security services are inadequate and bandits break into your house, steal your money and burn down your house, your 'rights' mean nothing.

If civil society collapses, rights become luxuries.

Civil unrest is an ever present threat, and it increases when people feel that the social contract is not being respected.

Hitler emerged from a disaffected german population following on from the perceived unfairness of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

There are a lot of people in America who feel like they are being unfairly treated...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AbusesToilets

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Healthcare and Social Security spending account for a larger percentage annually of the US budget.

http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/117/2014

Is that money an acceptable outlay, given the return generated relative to Defense spending?

Do you feel that the US and by extension its allies globally have benefited from Defense spending since WW2?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The people with zero wealth (or negative wealth) are the majority of the citizens of the united states. Meanwhile a tiny minority are increasing their share of the wealth in the economy.
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129-it-001-who-are-really-getting-ahead-america-forget-1

What's your limit where this becomes unacceptable?

For example, would you support a system where 10 people control 99.9% of all the wealth in America, while the rest of the population are in debt?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Colonialboy

Akrasia wrote: »

MA is split between the liberal, highly educated urban centres, and the republican, poorly educated rural areas.

There are less than half a million registered republicans out of the 4 million registered voters in the state, so if Trump is popular amongst about 200 thousand voters out of a population of 4 million...

It's not convincing to say that Trump appeals to highly educated people, when he really only appeals to a very specific sub set of the most conservative people in the state (registered republicans).

In the GE, Trump would be utterly annihilated in MA

So how do you explain MA elected a Republican Scott Brown taking Ted Kennedys seat in the senate in 2010, and the fact the current govenor of MA is Republican Charlie Baker .

If you were ever on the MASS Pike at 6 AM you would see all the traffic communting in from the 'poorly educated rural areas' to their jobs in hightech, 3rd level in the urban centres.

Ive lived in MA on and off for 30 years, I know plenty educated people supporting Trump.

btw your numbers are misleading too .. Pollsters are predicting >700,000 Republican votes being cast , and 1.3 million Democratic votes being cast.

Colonialboy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

[/B]

We digress from the thread, but your claim merits response. Any objective observer can see huge flaws in your simplistic response.

The IRS have an ongoing program to track down 'private citizens' hiding money off shore... cos the US didnt get its cut.
The US Govt fined 80 Swiss banks 1.3 billion for facilitating 40,000 plus accounts holding close to 50 billion.
Overall, more than 54,000 taxpayers have come clean during the U.S. crackdown and paid more than $8 billion in taxes, interest and penalties, said David Horton, acting deputy commissioner of the IRS Large Business and International Division.

and thats just one country .. theres a litany of examples involving huge amounts of money that prove the fallacy of your comment regarding private wealth

back on topic, I see Trump has taken an interesting approach to Israel, his comments indicate that whilst he would be a supporter of Israel he would not enter negotiations as an advcoate of any one side. He is indicating Israel has to make concessions for there to be any peace. .

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I said wealth in America

Are you denying that there is wealth in America?

Are you denying that America is a place?

Do you deny that we can measure the amount of wealth in an economy?

What level of consolidation of wealth in any economy do you consider to be unacceptable.

Would you find it acceptable if the global economy was owned and controlled entirely by a group of 100 people, owning all of the land, All of the Banks and financial services, all of the means of production and all of the natural resources, and all of the intellectual property and patents, while the rest of the 7 billion people were all in debt to those 100 people?

Fr Tod Umptious

Kind of interesting article here about a poll in MA that shows Trump having more support with union members than with the public in general.

And it’s hardly that surprising seeing as he wants curbs in immigration and more protectionist trade policies.

And I’m sure the opinion of MA union member is not unique within the US

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/03/01/trump-mass-appeal-one-factor-that-explains-the-republican-frontrunner-popularity/l49Yv8wfOJ3wFStbzGwc0L/story.html?p1=feature_pri_hp

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Not that it matters, but Duke never endorsed Trump.

Endorse has been defined "declare one's public approval or support of," and David Duke clearly states publicly that he supports Trump for president, advocates that his followers support Trump, and will vote for Trump as president, but confounds and renders ambiguous the word endorse when he rambles on.

Sources:
"Who Is David Duke, the White Supremacist Who Endorsed Donald Trump?"
"Donald Trump downplays endorsement from David Duke"
"Trump refused to condemn endorsements from a prominent white supremacist and former KKK leader"
"Former Ku Klux Klan leader declares support for Donald Trump"

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

Endorse has been defined "declare one's public approval or support of," and David Duke clearly states publicly that he supports Trump for president, advocates that his followers support Trump, and will vote for Trump as president, but confounds and renders ambiguous the word endorse when he rambles on.

Seriously, who cares? Duke said he cannot "endorse" Trump due to his opposition to his stance on other issues, but on Immigration, he is the best choice, so he will support him. (And Senator Jeff Sessions actual endorsement of Trump confirms that!)

This David Duke bs is nothing more than a (failed) attempt to hit Trump. Far as I can tell it's having no real effect on his support, as most people are already well aware of the media's foolery, and worse, the GOP establishment's all out war on Donald.

You might as well listen to the man himself, since you seem so invested in this "drama":

timmyntc

Amazingfun wrote: »

This David Duke bs is nothing more than a (failed) attempt to hit Trump. Far as I can tell it's having no real effect on his support, as most people are already well aware of the media's foolery, and worse, the GOP establishment's all out war on Donald.

Next it'll be 'Hitler's descendants say that Hitler would have endorsed Donald Trump'

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The Warrens of the world are the very people who don't want to see the US spending so much money on its military budget. They want to see more money being spent on its roads its schools and social security and other things that can benefit the vast majority of Americans.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

The greatest waste in taxpayer and government spending began with Ronald Reagan's arms race, where the federal deficit was first doubled by this pseudo-fiscal conservative's administration and Republican congress. And for all practical purposes the arms race continues, with administrations following Reagan's example to the present day.

No matter what party controlled the US presidency or congress, both Republican and Democrat administrations and their respective congresses have supported this massive, most expensive military in the world, 3 times PRC's budget, and more expensive than all the combined military budgets of the 25 EU nations. And no one listened to former 5-star general and Republican president Dwight D Eisenhower, back then or today, who warned the American people about the influence and power of the Military Industrial Complex. Odds are if you seriously run against the MIC today, you will not win president November 2016.

Could not agree with you more. If you look back to Bush. He ramped up military spending and the US war machine during his term and Obama has come in and has doubled down with the US war machine himself. The US war machine is not a partisan issue both the Republicans and the Democrats have been very happy to jump in bed with the Military industrial complex. The US never says it has an empire. But it has military bases in over 100 countries. It topples governments it doesn't like and installs puppet governments. Honduras being a recent example. The US agency for international development USAID has a long and sordid history of working in various countries to subvert policies and or people the US doesn't like.

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Kind of interesting article here about a poll in MA that shows Trump having more support with union members than with the public in general.

And it’s hardly that surprising seeing as he wants curbs in immigration and more protectionist trade policies.

And I’m sure the opinion of MA union member is not unique within the US

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/03/01/trump-mass-appeal-one-factor-that-explains-the-republican-frontrunner-popularity/l49Yv8wfOJ3wFStbzGwc0L/story.html?p1=feature_pri_hp

Sadly Unions continue to take a severe beating. Overall just over 11% of the US work force is unionised. In the private sector only about 6.5% is. Wiping out unions has been a key goal of Republicans at state level throughout the US.

K-9

Tbh I don't see what Trump can do over the Duke thing and the media are trying to make a story out of it.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

The national wealth just refers to how wealthy a country is.

If you're in a functioning democratic state, it is reasonable to expect decent public services and a reasonable distribution of wealth amongst the citizens

if you're in a tin pot dictatorship, you expect that the cronies of the dictator privately own all of the assets in the nation and the citizens/subjects own little or nothing.

You act as though wealthy people have a divine right to ownership over their assets. in reality, those 'rights' are determined by the legal structures of the state they live in (or do business in). The government could introduce a wealth tax that would tax a percentage of someone's wealth and not just income, or they could increase inheritance and capital gains taxes to a very high level, or they can go the other direction, and introduce low taxes and loopholes that allow elites to shelter their assets beyond the reach of the tax collectors and put the tax burden on lower income workers.

Rights are not divinely given, they are based on the willingness of the society/state to allocate them, and defend them against attack.

You can claim an absolute right to property ownership, but if the security services are inadequate and bandits break into your house, steal your money and burn down your house, your 'rights' mean nothing.

If civil society collapses, rights become luxuries.

Civil unrest is an ever present threat, and it increases when people feel that the social contract is not being respected.

Hitler emerged from a disaffected german population following on from the perceived unfairness of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

There are a lot of people in America who feel like they are being unfairly treated...

Your last line there for me is a large chunk of the reason behind the rise of a demagogue like Trump within the Republican ranks while also a large chunk of Sanders rise is due to another segment of Americans who agree with him that the US economy is rigged in favour of a small group at the top at the expense of the majority.

StewartGriffin

Tumbleweeds in here on Super Tuesday?

No results yet other than projections matching what was predicted, not a whole lot to discuss.

Amazingfun

Trump is having a very good day , my dream is that he ends up taking Texas and OK as well, fingers crossed!!

Inquitus

Amazingfun wrote: »

Trump is having a very good day , my dream is that he ends up taking Texas and OK as well, fingers crossed!!

He's not going to win Texas, OK is very close, everywhere else he looks like winning.

Amazingfun

Inquitus wrote: »

He's not going to win Texas, OK is very close, everywhere else he looks like winning.

Yeah, I know, but it was fun to dream of a full sweep. Still, at least Cruz didn't get the 50% he was hoping for

XR3i

d tump is gon from 8/1 into 9/4

Well he had the Republican nomination already sewn up.