2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

No hyperbole at all. The imprint of racism and discrimination.

"The imprint of racism and discrimination." Sounds an awful lot like hyperbole.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

And I would agree with those who point to gerrymandering being a factor. There is no doubt that gerrymandering of house districts has been very common and is a blatant example of the corruption and dysfunction which has seen the majority of Americans lose any hope that the current system can actually work for them.

Gerrymandering would have nothing to do with a US Senate election.

As for the EPA it certainly is standard Republican policy to attack the EPA so not surprised to see you would like to see it done away with. You do make some very broad statements though. Exactly what abuses are your talking about by the EPA that need to be brought into the public eye and exactly what negative effects on industry and consumers are you talking about?

EPA abuses are numerous, and can be found by any simple google search. But I will just relate some personal experiences with the EPA. Where I live, coal was king (region of the Molly Maguires), now coal is dead thanks to the EPA. I can’t build a house on a property I own because the EPA has overreached and designated all the good building sections as wetlands. I can’t put a plank across an 8 foot stream on my property, to get from one side to the other side with a wheelbarrow, without EPA approval, and they would only consider it after I get approvals from the State DEP, the State Fish and Game Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers (translation... FORGET IT!). And I won’t even consider buying a diesel truck again because now the EPA requires all diesel vehicles to have a tank containing animal piss that is pumped into the fuel mixture. Diesel vehicles are breaking down everywhere because of the problems with these EPA regulations and many dealers are forced to throw in free towing just to move the vehicles off their lots.

PopePalpatine

Are you talking about DEF being added to diesel fuel? DEF is actually synthetic urea, and not "animal piss" as you've described it. It is used to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, which diesel engines are notorious for producing.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Are you talking about DEF being added to diesel fuel? DEF is actually synthetic urea, and not "animal piss" as you've described it. It is used to reduce nitrous oxide emissions, which diesel engines are notorious for producing.

Yup. "Animal Piss" is what we here who have to deal with the nonsense, affectionately call it. And if it runs out, and you don't take care of it in very short order, the engine breaks down and the vehicle more often than not needs to be towed. Watching diesel vehicles traveling on the side of the roads at 5 mph is referred to as the "Animal Piss Crawl."

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Gerrymandering would have nothing to do with a US Senate election.



EPA abuses are numerous, and can be found by any simple google search. But I will just relate some personal experiences with the EPA. Where I live, coal was king (region of the Molly Maguires), now coal is dead thanks to the EPA. I can’t build a house on a property I own because the EPA has overreached and designated all the good building sections as wetlands. I can’t put a plank across an 8 foot stream on my property, to get from one side to the other side with a wheelbarrow, without EPA approval, and they would only consider it after I get approvals from the State DEP, the State Fish and Game Commission, and the Army Corps of Engineers (translation... FORGET IT!). And I won’t even consider buying a diesel truck again because now the EPA requires all diesel vehicles to have a tank containing animal piss that is pumped into the fuel mixture. Diesel vehicles are breaking down everywhere because of the problems with these EPA regulations and many dealers are forced to throw in free towing just to move the vehicles off their lots.

Agreed Gerrymandering would have nothing to do with senate races which is why I was very specific and said house districts which have seen a very large amount of gerrymandering so not sure why you bring up senate races there. I quote below again for you what I said.






"There is no doubt that gerrymandering of house districts has been very common and is a blatant example of the corruption and dysfunction which has seen the majority of Americans lose any hope that the current system can actually work for them."




Again you say EPA abuses are numerous but fail to offer any examples yourself except some "personal examples" which involve wetlands you cannot build on and you not buying a diesel truck. You claim that EPA abuses are wide spread so be specific what are these abuses and what harms exactly are they causing industry and consumers as you claim?

InitiumNovum

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A lot of libertarians are divided on the topic of abortion. It all seems to weight heavily on the extent or degree of absolutism one treats property rights. Some extreme propertarian libertarians might say that a woman's womb is her property absolutely and therefore she can expel from her womb anything she wishes and at any time during a pregnancy. Rothbard in particular held this view.

While Paul's position on abortion might reflect his own feelings, I think pragmatism has a lot more to play here; being pro-life seems to be mandatory for winning over the religious/evangelical vote which constitutes a sizeable percentage of Republican voters.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Again you say EPA abuses are numerous but fail to offer any examples yourself except some "personal examples" which involve wetlands you cannot build on and you not buying a diesel truck. You claim that EPA abuses are wide spread so be specific what are these abuses and what harms exactly are they causing industry and consumers as you claim?

The EPA is more interested in placing political agendas and issuing regulations over sound science. To list a few, they have banned products against documents and testimony of hundreds of scientists. They tailor science to justify what they want to do and shield key research from peer review. They suppress research showing the cost of proposed air pollution standards. They ignored epidemiological evidence to foment false alarms about the dangers of ozone, radon, Alar, dioxins, and asbestos. They refuse to divulge how it calculated cost-benefit analyses.

And this year it is expected they will come out with harsh regulations against the fracking industry which will drive them out of business. State regulations have worked fine for decades. I guess the EPA just doesn't want us to have cheap energy.

Much, much more abuses if anyone bothers to look.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

The EPA is more interested in placing political agendas and issuing regulations over sound science. To list a few, they have banned products against documents and testimony of hundreds of scientists. They tailor science to justify what they want to do and shield key research from peer review. They suppress research showing the cost of proposed air pollution standards. They ignored epidemiological evidence to foment false alarms about the dangers of ozone, radon, Alar, dioxins, and asbestos. They refuse to divulge how it calculated cost-benefit analyses.

And this year it is expected they will come out with harsh regulations against the fracking industry which will drive them out of business. State regulations have worked fine for decades. I guess the EPA just doesn't want us to have cheap energy.

Much, much more abuses if anyone bothers to look.

Political agrends that is pretty funny really considering the above looks like the typical vague Republican anti EPA talking points. I might also add "sound science" is fairly ironic coming from a Republican given that parties current stance on things like Climate Change.


Again though you fall to give any examples. What products have they banned and against what scientific evidence? What science have they "tailored" what exactly have they surpressed?


As for coming out with strict standards for fracking I think that is important. Oklahoma has weak laws on fracking as a result they have seen a massive uptick in earthquakes from about 2 per year in the early 2000's to over 2 per day so far this year and these are of a magnitude that can be felt and potentially damage structures. That is very dangerous obviously to everyone safety.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Political agrends that is pretty funny really considering the above looks like the typical vague Republican anti EPA talking points. I might also add "sound science" is fairly ironic coming from a Republican given that parties current stance on things like Climate Change.


Again though you fall to give any examples. What products have they banned and against what scientific evidence? What science have they "tailored" what exactly have they surpressed?


As for coming out with strict standards for fracking I think that is important. Oklahoma has weak laws on fracking as a result they have seen a massive uptick in earthquakes from about 2 per year in the early 2000's to over 2 per day so far this year and these are of a magnitude that can be felt and potentially damage structures. That is very dangerous obviously to everyone safety.

Here’s several for your reading enjoyment. I think you will see enough examples.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/21/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies-part-ii/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/epas-abuse-power_590334.html

https://epafacts.com/top-4-ways-the-epa-wastes-taxpayer-money/

And Oklahoma has strengthened their fracking laws. Aren’t the magnitude of the earthquakes you speak of in the 3–4 range, which are large enough to be felt by people, yet small enough to rarely cause damage? Doesn't quite seem so dangerous to everyone's safety.

PopePalpatine

EPA"Facts".org is a front group operated by Berman & Co, set up by former Washington lobbyist Rick Berman, whose stable of front groups also include the "Center for Consumer Freedom", co-funded by Philip Morris and numerous fast food and soft drink companies.

Whoops.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

EPA"Facts".org is a front group operated by Berman & Co, set up by former Washington lobbyist Rick Berman, whose stable of front groups also include the "Center for Consumer Freedom", co-funded by Philip Morris and numerous fast food and soft drink companies.

Whoops.

Okay. But the million dollar questions remains... Is anything listed there regarding the EPA factually incorrect?

Ad Hominem whoops?

Manach

A political thinker who had made arguments which might resonate with Amerika is Rodger Scruton. In his book Green Philosophy he pointed out that top down command enviromental action has a tendancy not to be as effective as that which is derived from local communities and NGOs operating at the ground level. Large orgs are both subject to being too easily swayed by vocal lobby groups and to put their own bureautraic interests ahead of their supposed primary goals.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

By which you mean, it's a great example, but there are plenty of other soi-disant "libertarians" that are equally a la carte about their "principles". If libertarians can't agree that the essence of bodily autonomy is a "liberty", those principles are worth nothing.

Actually the considerable majority of what passes as libertarian philosophy and intellectual thought considers this beyond any reasonable debate. The difference tends to arise much more in a la carte voters, and politicians wiggling off the hook of the shame of the name "movement conservative".

Both parties favor a powerful and intrusive federal government, and only agitate for or against states' rights on hot-button issues like marijuana legalization, gay marriage, abortion, or the Common Core.

But it's the GOP (or the less openly authoritarian wing of it, at least) that grandstands on it as a supposed principle. Before behaving in a shamelessly venue-shopping manner.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Legally it has been settled in the US by Roe v Wade.

It may not be palatable to everyone, including myself, but the issue has been settled by the supreme court.

Manach

Actually, speaking in general, decisions in law are never settled. While rare, it is not unheard of for SC in the US (and in UK, Ireland) for that matter to reverse themselves based on different interpretations of legal theory based on the evolution of society : eg the Brown School board decision.

Brian?

Manach wrote: »

Actually, speaking in general, decisions in law are never settled. While rare, it is not unheard of for SC in the US (and in UK, Ireland) for that matter to reverse themselves based on different interpretations of legal theory based on the evolution of society : eg the Brown School board decision.

The UK doesn't even have a constitution, never mind a Supreme Court! But you're right I suppose, the matter seems settled but may be revisited.

Edit; apologies, the UK does have a Supreme Court. But true to their messed up nature it's only for England and Wales.

Manach

Actually AFAIR the UK revised their system a few years back, to move cases from House of Lords to the Supreme Court (in name if not in fact)?
But right on the revisited part.

Brian?

Manach wrote: »

Actually AFAIR the UK revised their system a few years back, to move cases from House of Lords to the Supreme Court (in name if not in fact)?
But right on the revisited part.

See my edit. Apologies.

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Libertarians are considerably more "decided" on the matter than most, as I've pointed out. Decided against the position you're defending on their behalf. The "libertarians for life" are the shameless exceptionalists, by any objective review of what passes for "thought" in libertarian circles.

But when libertarians go off the rails on this one, it's that bit more galling than when the average person in the street does so. Most people are willing to see rights existing in a hierarchy, with some consideration for the common good coming into play. Libertarians, though, are the ones riffing long and tedious about the absolute nature of their individual rights. The idea that blastocytes not merely have such rights, but that they trump those of extant persons, "enslaving" them as the usual Randroid rhetoric would have it with a duty of care that would be regarded as utterly intolerable in any other situation, defies belief in such a framework.

Black Swan

MOD: We may be drifting off a bit from our discussion of the "2016 US Presidential Race," and should get back on track. Should members wish to open new threads for the discussion of Libertarians and their positions, or the EPA, or US Supreme Court, or Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice in US Politics that would be grand. Thanks.

Brian?

So to sum up:

Cruz, Rubio and Rand Paul are all running for the GOP.

Only Hilary has officially declared for the Dems.

Is this correct?

Nate Silver has Jeb Bush and Scott Walker neck and neck for the GOP and Hilary an absolute lock for the Dems:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/watch-totally-subjective-presidential-odds-ny1-edition/

Best case scenario for the Dems here is actually Walker v Hilary. His record on Union busting will not play well in the mid west swing states.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Best case scenario for the Dems here is actually Walker v Hilary. His record on Union busting will not play well in the mid west swing states.

I don’t see it. The mid-west union representation doesn’t appear to be much different than that of the rest of the country.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm

Personally, I think what Walker has done to turn around the dismal finances of his state (WI) will carry a much higher weight with voters than the negative connotation “union busting,” and might actually play to his advantage as the majority of people see their funds decrease in order to pay for exorbitant wages and benefits.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/391760/scott-walkers-sterling-record-limited-government-deroy-murdock

Paleface

I know its a bit early and a lot will happen between now and the election but these are the odds that Paddy Power are currently offering on who will win the election. As usual I think they are pretty much on the money even at this stage although a scandal in anyones campaign would cause them to recalculate the odds immediately. (I've only included those who've already declared or are widely expected to do so as they have quite a long list of names including Kim Kardashian at 1000-1:pac:)

Hillary Clinton: evens
Jeb Bush: 4-1
Scott Walker: 9-1
Marco Rubio: 11-1
Chris Christie: 11-1
Rand Paul: 14-1
Elizabeth Warren: 28-1
Joe Biden: 33-1
Ted Cruz: 33-1
Carly Fiorina: 66-1

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

I know its a bit early and a lot will happen between now and the election but these are the odds that Paddy Power are currently offering on who will win the election. As usual I think they are pretty much on the money even at this stage although a scandal in anyones campaign would cause them to recalculate the odds immediately. (I've only included those who've already declared or are widely expected to do so as they have quite a long list of names including Kim Kardashian at 1000-1:pac:)

Hillary Clinton: evens
Jeb Bush: 4-1
Scott Walker: 9-1
Marco Rubio: 11-1
Chris Christie: 11-1
Rand Paul: 14-1
Elizabeth Warren: 28-1
Joe Biden: 33-1
Ted Cruz: 33-1
Carly Fiorina: 66-1

Odd not to see Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson and John Kasich in the GOP mix yet as they are making waves. And on the D’s side why not give some odds to Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jime Webb? They're keep their names in the news for a possible run in the event Hillary's magical mystery campaign crashes and burns.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Odd not to see Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham, Ben Carson and John Kasich in the GOP mix yet as they are making waves. And on the D’s side why not give some odds to Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jime Webb? They're keep their names in the news for a possible run in the event Hillary's magical mystery campaign crashes and burns.

They are all listed but mostly at longer odds than those I listed earlier. O'Malley is 25-1 for example while Perry is 80-1.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I don’t see it. The mid-west union representation doesn’t appear to be much different than that of the rest of the country.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t05.htm

Personally, I think what Walker has done to turn around the dismal finances of his state (WI) will carry a much higher weight with voters than the negative connotation “union busting,” and might actually play to his advantage as the majority of people see their funds decrease in order to pay for exorbitant wages and benefits.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/391760/scott-walkers-sterling-record-limited-government-deroy-murdock

How exactly has Walker turned around Wisconsin's finances? According to the Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia Wisconsin is now 49th of 50 states in economic outlook. Since Walker took office Wisconsin has gone from 11th to 44th in job creation. His new budget offers a tax cut that mostly benefits the rich and sucks public money into private schools in the form of vouchers. Wages in Wisconsin are also falling at twice the national level are some examples that suggest Wisconsin is not doing well financially under Walker.

InTheTrees

Paleface wrote: »

They are all listed but mostly at longer odds than those I listed earlier. O'Malley is 25-1 for example while Perry is 80-1.

I was going to say there isnt a chance any name in that list would have any better odds than 66-1.

Manach

The problem with quoting such statistics say X or that a report says Y is that they are usually culled via Google with a web search of finding support for or against this position. To paraphrase the author Jonathon Haidt, the Net acts as a giant smorgasbord of data which can be used to support any position. So presumable the best people to decide on the local matter effecting them would be the state voters themselves, else politicians hailing from say an electoral base of a poor state like Arkansas would never amount to much.

lochderg

Brian? wrote: »

I think the chances of Romney getting the nomination as so close to zero it's not worth considering.

For the GOP, I still think it will be Jeb Bush. Are people still hitching their wagon to Rand Paul?

For the Dems, I think we could see a Biden/Webb ticket.

Perhaps the 'Irish Catholic' will once again endorse Mitt Romney and his intention to hand excessive grotesque wealth to the oligarchs-