2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

TheDoctor

Bernies scary socialist ideas include:

- Breaking up the banks (would be supported in Ireland)
- Affordable College education (already in Ireland)
- Cheaper healthcare (already in Ireland)
- Raise the tax rates (highest rate in the US is 40% on income over $413,000) we pay 40% on €32,000!

Compare that to what our left parties suggests and he's not very left at all.

BoJack Horseman

TheDoctor wrote: »

Compare that to what our left parties suggests and he's not very left at all.

True dat.

The socialists are all about the nationalisation of finance & industry, the exit from capital markets, the EU & the default of national debt.

fundamental

whatawaster

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Except Ireland.

Nearly 100 years in & yet to elect a socialist government.

Why would we?
Most of us like owning stuff.

One of the most generous social welfare supports in Europe, free primary and secondary education, free healthcare for many, heavily subsidised healthcare for everyone.

Extremely high minimum wage and very strong workers rights legislation.

People like to paint the governments we have had over the last 100 years (Fianna Fail and Fine Gael) as right-wing. But they are just wrong. They are both populist, social-democratic parties. The only problem is they are largely incompetent.

BoJack Horseman

whatawaster wrote: »

They are both populist, social-democratic parties

Indeed... but neither of them are socialist.

There will probably never be a socialist government in Ireland.
They just had the best election of their lives and got 4% of the vote.

K-9

Black Swan wrote: »

Although not Communist one-party control, per se, if Republican Trump wins the presidency, that means the Executive branch will be under Republican control. If the Republicans maintain majority control of both US Senate and US House, they will essentially control Congress, the 2nd branch of US government. If the Republicans continue their control of these 2 branches of US government long enough to fill vacancies in the US Supreme Court they will gain a Republican agenda majority (stacking the 3rd and remaining branch of the US government), which, for all practical purposes means one-party control of the 3 branches of US government. With 3 branch Republican control, there will be no checks-and-balances against "one ruling party" power, abuse, and corruption.

Indeed, that gets forgotten when people think the Presidency isn't really that powerful, if both houses have a majority behind a Presidency, that definitely makes a big difference.

It's why I'd be wary of Trump, it's all well and good saying he'll be different as president from the campaign trail but if Republicans control the 2 houses as well...
Applies equally to Cruz, if not more so.

K-9

Manach wrote: »

Which of course while being a left wing origin story ignores the real number of communist and their sympathisers within State at the time as well as the similar style purges that are currently ongoing against those who fail to hold proper progressive values within work or educational establishments.

Of course there was, it was the Cold War after all but the McCarthy trials in particular ruined thousands of lives needlessly, mainly because it took years for anybody to shout stop. Many members of his own party saw through it early on but were too scared of McCarthy, never mind liberal Holywood players!

K-9

whatawaster wrote: »

And the United States

Yes, but it would be hard to find a comparable right wing party here or in Britain. The Tories would be closest but even they've backtracked on some cuts to welfare.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but it would be hard to find a comparable right wing party here or in Britain. The Tories would be closest but even they've backtracked on some cuts to welfare.

If you're referring to the Republicans, I'd moot UKIP as the closest analogue. They're fairly libertarian save for their stance on immigration and defence. The Democrats seem like a sort of hybrid of the Tories and Lib Dems to me with trade union lobbying.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Although not Communist one-party control, per se, if Republican Trump wins the presidency, that means the Executive branch will be under Republican control. If the Republicans maintain majority control of both US Senate and US House, they will essentially control Congress, the 2nd branch of US government. If the Republicans continue their control of these 2 branches of US government long enough to fill vacancies in the US Supreme Court they will gain a Republican agenda majority (stacking the 3rd and remaining branch of the US government), which, for all practical purposes means one-party control of the 3 branches of US government. With 3 branch Republican control, there will be no checks-and-balances against "one ruling party" power, abuse, and corruption.

Plus do not forget that the Republicans already control the vast majority of the state houses and senates and the vast majority of state governorships as well.

eire4

whatawaster wrote: »

And the United States

I would say that the US currently leans more towards an oligarchy at the moment.

briany

I'd say Hillary will win handy enough tonight. Not a mind-blowing prediction I know, but I think some Sanders supporters are quietly hopeful of an upset. The fact that there's a palpable sense that Hillary's sure thing in New York is threatened will galvanise her support enough to come out in force and win the thing by the 10-15 points that polls suggest.

BoJack Horseman

click on the link in the tweet... it gives an expanded PDF improving on the preview image shown in the tweet.

https://twitter.com/cspanwj/status/721333562893402112

Akrasia

briany wrote: »

I'd say Hillary will win handy enough tonight. Not a mind-blowing prediction I know, but I think some Sanders supporters are quietly hopeful of an upset. The fact that there's a palpable sense that Hillary's sure thing in New York is threatened will galvanise her support enough to come out in force and win the thing by the 10-15 points that polls suggest.

Quietly Hopeful but not particularly confident. It's a super closed primary. A lot of voters who would have been Sanders supporters are not eligible to vote because of the hugely restrictive registration laws

Suryavarman

TheDoctor wrote: »

Bernies scary socialist ideas include:

- Breaking up the banks (would be supported in Ireland)

Has anyone proposed this in Europe or Ireland? What is this even supposed achieve other than satisfying Bernie's ideological desires?

- Affordable College education (already in Ireland)

College education is already affordable for the enormous majority of Americans.

- Cheaper healthcare (already in Ireland)

Has Sanders proposed anything that would reduce the cost of healthcare?

- Raise the tax rates (highest rate in the US is 40% on income over $413,000) we pay 40% on €32,000!

He proposes a top tax rate of close to 70%. I don't think even the PBP-AAA were proposing that in the most recent election.

He also intends to tax capital gains as normal income while maintaining the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

Compare that to what our left parties suggests and he's not very left at all.

Ideologically he's in line with Sinn Fein or PBP-AAA. He's definitely much to the left of Labour or the Social Democrats.

Overheal

More shady voter antics afoot

http://www.wnyc.org/story/de-blasio-demands-explanation-boe-drops-126000-brooklyn-democrats/

briany wrote: »

I'd say Hillary will win handy enough tonight. Not a mind-blowing prediction I know, but I think some Sanders supporters are quietly hopeful of an upset. The fact that there's a palpable sense that Hillary's sure thing in New York is threatened will galvanise her support enough to come out in force and win the thing by the 10-15 points that polls suggest.

Its happened before. In michigan he was behind by 20 points and won that

http://www.inquisitr.com/2871331/bernie-sanders-michigan-upset-victory/

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously communist is everything under the power of the state with one ruling party. $15 dollars an hour isn't communist nor right wing. It is $15 an hour, argue that on its own merits but suggesting it is communism is nonsensical.
Sanders isn't a communist, I don't agree with the man on everything but trying to tone down some of the excesses of capitalism doesn't make you a communist. Especially as there isn't one country on Earth that doesn't have controls on capitalism in some way or fashion.

15 dollars an hour is merely a ploy. Raise wages for workers but force more people into unemployment and make them dependent on the state. Anyone who's not worth 15 dollars an hour doesn't get a job and never gets one either because employers can't afford on-the-job training.

With open borders the minimum wage effectively becomes the maximum wage for any unskilled work.

Once 55% of the population is taking more from the government than they pay in there will be no political resistance to further expansion of the welfare state and the USA will have completed its transition into a 3rd world country.

Ostensibly no, the 15 dollar minimum wage isn't communism but its the fastest way to get there.

At the end of the day though, it won't turn America into a communist state. It as well as the other policies being pursued like mass immigration will turn America into Brazil, with a very very wealthy and homogenous upper crust with cheap maids, gardeners and pool boys and a tiny (and cheap) middle class service industry, a large white/hispanic working class and the black community in the worst shape its been since slavery.

20Cent

walshyn93 wrote: »

a very very wealthy and homogenous upper crust with cheap maids, gardeners and pool boys and a tiny (and cheap) middle class service industry, a large white/hispanic working class and the black community in the worst shape its been since slavery.

Sounds like what "capitalism" is doing now.

walshyn93

20Cent wrote: »

Sounds like what "capitalism" is doing now.

If "capitalism" includes the free movement of labour then yes. Without the free movement of labour capitalism will continue to create wealth and distribute it amongst the workers through a jobs market with fair competition. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is immigration.

The whole purpose of unselective immigration is to drive down wages and people on the left are still surprised that wages are staying low and income inequality is rising. Then they want to rush and pass a law that creates unemployment, never realising they're being played. Neo-liberalism is the wealthy establishment left and wealthy establishment right agreeing to **** the working man.

If you're wondering why media outlets that evade tax are all of a sudden so willing to publicise tax evasion these days it's to take the left's eye off the master issue of the day which is immigration.

Amazingfun

Beautiful night for Trump

60% of the vote and 89 delegates go to him! Kasich gets 3 delegates, and the best part of all: 0 for Cruz.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/primary-caucus/new-york

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

If "capitalism" includes the free movement of labour then yes. Without the free movement of labour capitalism will continue to create wealth and distribute it amongst the workers through a jobs market with fair competition. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is immigration.

The whole purpose of unselective immigration is to drive down wages and people on the left are still surprised that wages are staying low and income inequality is rising. Then they want to rush and pass a law that creates unemployment, never realising they're being played. Neo-liberalism is the wealthy establishment left and wealthy establishment right agreeing to **** the working man.

If you're wondering why media outlets that evade tax are all of a sudden so willing to publicise tax evasion these days it's to take the left's eye off the master issue of the day which is immigration.

Err. That is why no purely capitalistic nation exists? Seriously though how us $15 /hour going to drive down wages (while allowing the same work to be done)?
Also you talk of fair competition, surely that means you should be in fair competition against everyone in the world and no limits should be placed on immigration.

Capitalism without free movement would collapse wages as people wouldn't be able to drive up wages as jobs in different locations wouldn't have to compete. What you want is free movement for Westerners and not others.

Fr Tod Umptious

Can we stop talking about Sanders winning the Dem nomination now please.

Its a pity that he never had a chance against a candidate clearly favoured by the party and he put up a good fight. but its over for him now

LuckyLloyd

Sanders will influence Clinton's platform significantly so it's been a successful campaign. He hasn't had a realistic shot in quite some time though. At this stage he's only serving to highlight how vulnerable a candidate Clinton is.

BoJack Horseman

On to next Tuesday.

Pennsylvania
Rhodes Island
Conneticut
Marland
Delaware

TheDoctor

Trump can easily go 5/5 next week.

The largest is Pennsylvania with 71 delegates and is winner take all.

Last poll I see is on 13-15 April has Trump with a 20 point lead.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Can we stop talking about Sanders winning the Dem nomination now please.

Its a pity that he never had a chance against a candidate clearly favoured by the party and he put up a good fight. but its over for him now

Ie's going to struggle to match Clinton's pledged delegates now, but this has been a wierd campaign and Clinton is still under FBI investigation, she still has those speeches hanging over her head, and NY had some serious shenanigans going on with Brooklyn (Sanders' home neighbourhood) having 160 thousand voters purged from the register

There are also some huge discrepancies between the exit polls and the reported results (probably related to 'provisional ballots')

And then on the republican side, we have Trump running away with delegates, but probably won't make the magic number to get through the convention. Will trump be cheated at the convention? Will he run as a 3rd party? Would that open the door for Sanders to run as a third party?

As Trump gets more secure that he's beaten Cruz, will he shift his attacks to Hillary?
He's got a lot of ammunition that can be used against her and if Hillary was upset by the 'tone' from Sanders, she'll get a rude awakening from Trump

TheDoctor

If Trump doesnt get the nominee he's running as a third party. Could result in no nominee getting the 270 electoral college votes leaving the Republican controlled House of Representatives to vote for a new president.

Could suit the Republican party down to the ground.

Hande hoche!

Good result for Trump and Clinton. Will be interesting to see how it goes next week for Cruz and Sanders.

TheDoctor wrote: »

NY has come at the perfect time for Trump.
Polls show him currently in the low 50% and could see him take all 95 delegates just as talk of his campaign falling apart gather momentum.

Very close prediction, in hindsight.

BoJack Horseman

Rather strangely, though Cruz is likely to lose Pennsylvania he is hoping to take a large delegate haul.

Most of the states delegates are 'unbound'.

From RCP:..... a confusing allocation setup
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/19/nbc_reporter_cruz_to_win_half_of_pennsylvanias_delegates_even_if_he_comes_in_distant_third.html

54 of the Commonwealth's 71 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be directly elected (their names appear on the ballot) in a LOOPHOLE type primary, in which delegates are elected separately from a presidential preference. Each of the 18 Congressional District is allocated 3 delegates (54 = 18 districts × 3 delegates/district). Rule 8.4 of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania's Rules states that all delegates elected by Congressional District "...shall run at large within the Districts and shall not be officially committed to any particular candidate on the ballot.".

17 (10 base at-large delegates plus 4 bonus delegates plus 3 RNC delegates) of the Commonwealth's 71 delegates to the Republican National Convention delegates are bound for the 1st ballot to the candidate who receives the most votes in the Pennsylvania Presidential Primary. The delegates are released if the candidate withdraws, suspends, or terminates his/her campaign or publicly releases his/her delegates.

---

Primary

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Can we stop talking about Sanders winning the Dem nomination now please.

Its a pity that he never had a chance against a candidate clearly favoured by the party and he put up a good fight. but its over for him now

They'll still go on like he has a chance this time next year.

Christy42

TheDoctor wrote: »

If Trump doesnt get the nominee he's running as a third party. Could result in no nominee getting the 270 electoral college votes leaving the Republican controlled House of Representatives to vote for a new president.

Could suit the Republican party down to the ground.

Trump can't win in blue states (vs a Democrat, he hammers Republicans in them). Trump runs and Hillary takes the election. Granted Hillary probably wins in November anyway.

At this point Sander's supporters are reaching for a reason to cry foul. I would like to see those speeches but they are unlikely to sink her entirely. The FBI investigation is the only one that could destroy her. The issues with voting seem to be incompetence. I haven't seen a good argument saying they hurt Sanders, one of the fivethirtyeight guys said he was affected by it but pointed out he lives in an area likely to vote heavily for Hillary.

I say this as someone who probably would have voted for Sanders over Hillary if I had a vote. The odds of her not getting the nomination are the same as the odds of her dropping dead between before June.