2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

TheDoctor

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

If Trump and Bernie run could be a possibility

Akrasia

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.

Presuming the republicans retain Congress

If Trump runs as a third party, Given the fact that Clinton is so unpopular amongst independents and young people, The dems might actually require Sanders to run as a third party candidate (who urges his supporters to elect the democratic congressional and senate candidates in their state) to try and boost the chances of the Dems winning congress, to avoid the republicans nominating and confirming their own president in 2016 (giving them control of the all 3 branches of government, and ushering in 1000 years of darkness)

Inquitus

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 would cannibalise whoever the GOP Nominee is votes putting states in play for the Democrats that otherwise wouldn't be, it's hard to see how his running as a 3rd party could prevent Hillary getting over 270. He might win a few states, but he'd probably hand even more over to the Dem's.

Christy42

TheDoctor wrote: »

If Trump and Bernie run could be a possibility

True but the odds of Bernice running as an independent are remote. It would foster a lot of ill will towards the movement he has been building throughout this campaign. It would destroy anything he had gained in it. Finally he himself would prefer to see Hillary get the presidency than Cruz or Trump.

Akrasia

Inquitus wrote: »

Trump would cannibalise whoever the GOP Nominee is votes putting states in play for the Democrats that otherwise wouldn't be, it's hard to see how his running as a 3rd party could prevent Hillary getting over 270. He might win a few states, but he'd probably hand even more over to the Dem's.

It all depends on what happens between now and July. Hillary might be hoovering up delegates, Sanders is gaining popularity, and Hillary's popularity is declining. When the Republicans start attacking Hillary, her likability scores could plummet even further.

Trump is almost certainly going to be leading at the convention but is by no means guaranteed the nomination

If Trump goes third party, this could open up the door to other third party candidates who would never hope to win a majority of the national vote, but could hope for a plurarity. Would Bloomberg run for example? Would he take votes from Hillary?

This election year is so crazy and there are so many scenarios that I don't know how anyone can be ruled out of the race at this stage

TheDoctor

Hopefully Trump gets to about 1,100- 1,200. Then the convention will be great to watch.

Billy86

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

If that were true, we wouldn't be seeing going up year on year on year throughout the US. Those loans need to be taken for the exact reason that it is not affordable, and increasing costs coupled with stagnant (if not flat out lower) salaries/wages at grad level are making it less and less so.

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.

Where did you get the figure of 70% from? I might have missed it, what I have seen is:
- 52.2% for people making over 10mn
- 50.2% for 2-10mn
- 45.2% for 500k-2mn
- 39.2% for 250-500k
- 35.2% for 190-250k (230k-250k for married)
- 30.2% for 90-190k (151-230k for married)
- 27.2% for 37.5k-91k (75k-150k for married)
- 17.2% for 9.2k-37.5k (18-75k for married)
- 12.2% for 0-9k (0-18k for married)
http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

In this system, the vast majority would never see north of 27.2-30.2% tax, and you would need to earn over 500k a year to reach the tax levels of us here in Ireland (and if I'm correct, we're middle-to-lower end in the EU on tax rates).

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

That only kicks in at 250k, below that it has a lower tax rate than income tax, it is detailed in the same link as above.

TheDoctor

I love how the "Socialist/Communist" in the US proposes a crazy left income tax rate of 39.2% of income over $250K.

Whereas our "centre right" country has an income tax rate of 40% on income of €32,000.


That English clown who does the FOX business show on their channel had a segment whether it was morally right to tax people who earned over $350,000 a year 50% income tax. Had to laugh at that.

The Randy Riverbeast

TheDoctor wrote: »

I love how the "Socialist/Communist" in the US proposes a crazy left income tax rate of 39.2% of income over $250K.

Whereas our "centre right" country has an income tax rate of 40% on income of €32,000.


That English clown who does the FOX business show on their channel had a segment whether it was morally right to tax people who earned over $350,000 a year 50% income tax. Had to laugh at that.

My favourite was O'Reilly saying he would move to Ireland if Sanders won to avoid paying 90% taxes. If an American thinks they have it bad they would die of shock here

Billy86

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.

Surely you would be supportive of Sanders' stance on immigration, then?

https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/
“It [open borders] would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state…

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

“You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? … You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?”

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-bernie-sanders-s-tax-plan

Interesting link, especially its findings:

- Senator Sanders’s plan would raise tax revenue by $13.6 trillion over the next decade on a static basis. However, the plan would end up collecting $9.8 trillion over the next decade when accounting for decreased economic output in the long run.

- A majority of the revenue raised by the Sanders plan would come from a new 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, a new 2.2 percent broad-based income tax, and the elimination of tax expenditures relating to healthcare.

- According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would significantly increase marginal tax rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to 9.5 percent lower GDP over the long term.

- On a static basis, the plan would lead to 10.56 percent lower after-tax income for all taxpayers and 17.91 percent lower after-tax income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 12.84 percent.

Fair play to him for asking the nation to accept a 1/8th reduction in their take-home.
I'd love to see him win the nomination, if only to see how it sells to the nation at large rather than just to the Dems base.

Billy86

A major concern of Sanders' tax plan though, is how it would impact the ultra-wealthy. Not that someone earning 10mn+ annually can't afford to pay the extra tax, but more that someone who earns 10mn+ annually can afford to move everything to a different country at the drop of a hat - safeguards would likely need to be in place for that possibility. From an ideological viewpoint I am a big fan and really think society in general should be pushing in that direction, but the practicalities of it are not at all straightforward.

walshyn93

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

That's the most fatuous comment I've read all day. They're called blue states because they always go to the Democrats anyway.

If Romney had won 60% of the hispanic vote in 2012 he still would have lost. If he had won 5% more of the white vote he would have won.

For years its been taboo to try and win the white vote. While the Democrats try and scramble together a coalition of minorities who hate each other, Trump is appealing to pre-1960 Republican demographics which is almost exclusively black and white.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's the most fatuous comment I've read all day.

...followed by...

For years its been taboo to try and win the white vote.

Uh huh.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

...followed by...

Uh huh.

Have an argument would you? Snide insinuations don't belong on this forum.

All we hear about is how to win the hispanic vote or the black vote. "How can republicans win with hispanics?" they said after 2012. Never thinking that if they just took a pro-American stance on immigration they'd have drummed up the white vote by at least 5% with blue collar democrats and Romney would be president.

walshyn93

Billy86 wrote: »

Surely you would be supportive of Sanders' stance on immigration, then?

https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/
“It [open borders] would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state…

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

“You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? … You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?”

Economically he understands the argument. Demographically and socially he's clueless so I wouldn't trust him on immigration. He supports amnesty, which would give voting rights to millions of people from the 3rd world to vote the same way they do in the 3rd world. For whoever they're told to or whoever provides the free stuff. Luckily for Bernie he likes free stuff too, so I don't trust him on immigration.

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

safeguards would likely need to be in place for that possibility..

So, a 1/8th reduction in take-home and capital controls.

You'd think that feeling the Bern would not have to involve joining the ranks of Greece, Argentina, Zimbabwe & Russia.

I'd love to see him make the case for all of that!

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Have an argument would you?

Honestly, I'm having trouble thinking of a way of expressing the argument without sounding downright condescending, because arguing against what you said is like arguing with a claim that the earth is flat.

It's one thing arguing against a claim that's wrong. You've gone beyond fractally wrong into not-even-wrong territory by saying something that's so incredibly divorced from any semblance of reality that it's hard to know where to start rebutting it.

All we hear about is how to win the hispanic vote or the black vote.

That's quite the filter you've got there.

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So, a 1/8th reduction in take-home and capital controls.

You'd think that feeling the Bern would not have to involve joining the ranks of Greece, Argentina, Zimbabwe & Russia.

I'd love to see him make the case for all of that!

From a quick glance online, Greece and Zimbabwe appear to have top capital gains tax rates of 20%, and Argentina at 15%.

Meanwhile, as best I can see Denmark has 42%, France at 34.4%, Finland and Ireland 33% and Sweden 30%.

Christy42

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's the most fatuous comment I've read all day. They're called blue states because they always go to the Democrats anyway.

If Romney had won 60% of the hispanic vote in 2012 he still would have lost. If he had won 5% more of the white vote he would have won.

For years its been taboo to try and win the white vote. While the Democrats try and scramble together a coalition of minorities who hate each other, Trump is appealing to pre-1960 Republican demographics which is almost exclusively black and white.

Possibly not removing my quote from all context would help. I was referring to the case if Trump ran as an independent. The poster said that it might cause no one to reach the threshold for the presidency. I pointed Trump would eat into the Republican nomination's vote as opposed to the Democrat's vote so the Democrat candidate would still win enough state to take the presidency in that case.

As for your final comments, they seem more appropriate for the Republicans who are rather showing their divisions recently.

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

From a quick glance online, Greece and Zimbabwe appear to have top capital gains tax rates of 20%, and Argentina at 15%.

So what?
That has nothing to do with your suggestion of capital controls

You understand what capital controls are right?

move everything to a different country at the drop of a hat - safeguards would likely need to be in place for that possibility.

A government halting the flow of money out of a country is usually the sign that things have gone to sh*t.

It's never a good sign these days.

The shock of doing such a thing to the economy would be powerful, and not in a good way.

PopePalpatine

Christy42 wrote: »

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.

I wouldn't be surprised that, if Trump gets dumped by the GOP and decides to kamikaze them by running on his own, a few red states might swing blue.

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

That's the most fatuous comment I've read all day. They're called blue states because they always go to the Democrats anyway.

If Romney had won 60% of the hispanic vote in 2012 he still would have lost. If he had won 5% more of the white vote he would have won.

For years its been taboo to try and win the white vote. While the Democrats try and scramble together a coalition of minorities who hate each other, Trump is appealing to pre-1960 Republican demographics which is almost exclusively black and white.

Democrats need to appeal to minorities because that's their traditional base, about 40% of democrat voters are from 'minority' groups. Republicans don't care about minorities because only 11% of their voters are 'minorities'

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

The problem is that in the general election, all the independents come into play and about 30% of 'independent' voters are 'minorities' of which the majority (16%) are Hispanics and this vote can be enough to swing an election

Trump is already hugely unpopular amongst women and liberals, and minorities, and when you add those people together, it's way more than 50% of the population

He needs broader support to win a general election, or else he needs a competitor who's even less popular than he is, or some other way of splitting the vote so that his base can win a plurality (third party candidacies)

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

So what?
That has nothing to do with your suggestion of capital controls

You understand what capital controls are right?


A government halting the flow of money out of a country is usually the sign that things have gone to sh*t.

It's never a good sign these days.

The shock of doing such a thing to the economy would be powerful, and not in a good way.

Yes, I do know what they are, and you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by safeguards. What I was talking about was giving them reasons not to leave, not forcefully withholding funds or taking similar measures. What would be interesting would be to see how that would develop, because while I agree with his stance in principle, he would need to be able to convince them to not jump ship which would be no easy task.

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Interesting link, especially its findings:



Fair play to him for asking the nation to accept a 1/8th reduction in their take-home.
I'd love to see him win the nomination, if only to see how it sells to the nation at large rather than just to the Dems base.

But, but he doesn't really mean it!

Sorry, just had to use the Trumo supporters line.

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

Have an argument would you? Snide insinuations don't belong on this forum.

All we hear about is how to win the hispanic vote or the black vote. "How can republicans win with hispanics?" they said after 2012. Never thinking that if they just took a pro-American stance on immigration they'd have drummed up the white vote by at least 5% with blue collar democrats and Romney would be president.

The problem is you need to increase the latino and African American vote but from what I've read Trump isn't doing that.

BoJack Horseman

Billy86 wrote: »

giving them reasons not to leave

By not taking so much of their money.

If being tax competitive is to be abandoned, then money will move.

"Giving them reasons" = don't take so much of their money.
Otherwise capital controls are the only mechanism to keep the cash in house.

A thank you note & a fruit basket from the IRS probably wouldn't be a good enough reason.

Billy86

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

By not taking so much of their money.

If being tax competitive is to be abandoned, then money will move.

"Giving them reasons" = don't take so much of their money.
Otherwise capital controls are the only mechanism to keep the cash in house.

A thank you note & a fruit basket from the IRS probably wouldn't be a good enough reason.

If that were the case, the money would have moved out of Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, France, etc long ago. Likewise, there would be no wealthy people anywhere in Benelux or Scandinavia. Not sure why you're so eager to over simplify this.

Hande hoche!

K-9 wrote: »

The problem is you need to increase the latino and African American vote but from what I've read Trump isn't doing that.

Turnout was less than 60% of those eligible to vote in 2012. Just need to energize enough voters to come out on the day. Of course the problem is it's looking like both final candidates will have high unfavorable numbers.

Akrasia

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Turnout was less than 60% of those eligible to vote in 2012. Just need to energize enough voters to come out on the day. Of course the problem is it's looking like both final candidates will have high unfavorable numbers.

Hillary and Trump are both unpopular, but it's a different kind of intensity.

Lots of people think Hillary is just typical lying scheming politician who'll say whatever she thinks people want to hear

But the people who dislike trump think he's a monster who could destroy the country.

Trump's unpopularity will cause people to vote for Hillary, while Hillary's unpopularity will cause people to stay at home or vote third party, or even vote through gritted teeth for her despite not liking her, just to stop Trump from winning.

The only way Trump can beat her, is to make Hillary just as unpopular as he is. so it would likely be a hilariously vicious and attack oriented campaign that will energise Trump's 'straight talkin' base, while raising doubts about Hillary's moral character