2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

Hold the Cheez Whiz wrote: »

I am not saying this to be a smart-ass or to bait you, but is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that a lack of government regulation in any way stems the influence of corporate power? Any at all? And how are you defining power here?

To be fair with the deregulation in the financial industry which lead to the growth of these massive banks like JPMorgan Chase Citibank etc we saw how badly they could destroy the economy and so many peoples lives.
Then after these banks did so much damage they get bailed out at tax payers expense and not only does nobody go to jail but when specific criminal activity is exposed as it has been they get a slap on the wrist. In a recent fraud deal Chase were ordered to pay $7b as a so called punishment. Amazingly over $2b of that was allowed to be written off against taxes. Yes you read that right. The bank was engaged in fraud yet the tax payer has to pick up part of the fine. Thats like getting a speeding ticket for you or me but hey no worries write it off against your taxes! Plus when all is said and done none of the executives faced any direct punishment. In fact Jamie Diamond the Chase CEO was given a massive pay raise after this deal was done.

Hold the Cheez Whiz

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair with the deregulation in the financial industry which lead to the growth of these massive banks like JPMorgan Chase Citibank etc we saw how badly they could destroy the economy and so many peoples lives.
Then after these banks did so much damage they get bailed out at tax payers expense and not only does nobody go to jail but when specific criminal activity is exposed as it has been they get a slap on the wrist. In a recent fraud deal Chase were ordered to pay $7b as a so called punishment. Amazingly over $2b of that was allowed to be written off against taxes. Yes you read that right. The bank was engaged in fraud yet the tax payer has to pick up part of the fine. Thats like getting a speeding ticket for you or me but hey no worries write it off against your taxes! Plus when all is said and done none of the executives faced any direct punishment. In fact Jamie Diamond the Chase CEO was given a massive pay raise after this deal was done.

OK, so more limited government (i.e deregulation) clearly did not stem corporate influence. But what I asked is are there any cases where less government = less influence is actually true?

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER: The topic of this thread is "2016 US Presidential Race." It's drifting off and needs to get back on topic. Please know that you are most welcome to open new threads to discuss new topics.

Manach

I for one welcome President Vader.
As per the Washington post article:
"Darth Vader is polling higher than all potential 2016 presidential candidates" - link.
.

Black Swan

Prediction: Hillary Clinton will declare sometime during 2015, will run and win the Democrat nomination for president, and then run against some as-of-yet undeclared Republican in 2016.

There will be a real horse race for the Republican nomination, with probably 6 to 8 in the running during late 2015 into early 2016.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Prediction: Hillary Clinton will declare sometime during 2015, will run and win the Democrat nomination for president, and then run against some as-of-yet undeclared Republican in 2016.

There will be a real horse race for the Republican nomination, with probably 6 to 8 in the running during late 2015 into early 2016.

Hillary’s not helping herself coming out and saying stupid sh!t like this...

“This is what we call smart power, using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view.”

I’d put money on either Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush as the GOP picks.

Manach

I'm not progressive supporter beings a self-confessed conservative, but apart from a rather poor phrasing that left much to be hostage to fortune to hostile press, Clinton's words make a fair bit of sense. This echoes the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, the best way to defeat an enemy is to understand them.

There does seem to numerous leaks designed to place caltrops in Clinton's path to the Whitehouse - the recent one about her speaking fees and her requests/demands for the pre-talk setup. She seems to be taking fire both from left and right.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I’d put money on either Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush as the GOP picks.

Earlier I would have disagreed with you regarding Jeb Bush, but after the 2014 mid-term elections that gave Republicans control of Congress, the GOP may favour him. Given this voter shift, if Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush compete for the 2016 GOP nomination, I would guess today that the Bush Dynasty would prevail.

Manach wrote: »

There does seem to numerous leaks designed to place caltrops in Clinton's path to the Whitehouse - the recent one about her speaking fees and her requests/demands for the pre-talk setup. She seems to be taking fire both from left and right.

The GOP better keep their powder dry and not fire at Hilliary until they see the whites of her eyes. Otherwise they will exhaust all their ammunition way before November 2016, and old news is not news.

Rightwing

This race is a formality according to the layers. 1/8 on Clinton.

Black Swan

There are more women registered voters than men. Historically women have voted for men more often than not for most offices (e.g., Congress, Governors, etc.). This may change with a woman that actually has a chance to win running in 2016 for the Whitehouse.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary’s not helping herself coming out and saying stupid sh!t like this...

You're going to have to explain what exactly is stupid about what Clinton said. It's all fairly well reasoned and intelligent to me.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You're going to have to explain what exactly is stupid about what Clinton said. It's all fairly well reasoned and intelligent to me.

I believe very few Americans can empathize with “I guess I can see your point about wanting to blow us up.”

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

I believe very few Americans can empathize with “I guess I can see your point about wanting to blow us up.”

I have no idea if your right or if your wrong with that statement. But I certainly think the US as a country needs to move away from its current aggressive shoot first interventionist approach and look to engage in dialogue with other countries more. Violence only leads to more hatred and more violence and we all suffer and are demeaned by it. The US needs to look more to dialogue to look for non violent ways to deal with problems and disagreements.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I believe very few Americans can empathize with “I guess I can see your point about wanting to blow us up.”

That's not what she said though, is it?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

That's not what she said though, is it?

She didn’t say “understand,” “comprehend,” or “discern;” she said “empathize” (to have the same feelings as another person : to feel empathy for someone). So if you are to take Hillary at her word, then yeah, my paraphrasing is pretty much spot on. Although if her words get legs in the media, and if polls start to show a negative public outlook because of what she said, I confident her political advisors will be coming out, toot sweet, with a clarification about what she “really said.”

daUbiq

Amerika wrote: »

She didn’t say “understand,” “comprehend,” or “discern;” she said “empathize” (to have the same feelings as another person : to feel empathy for someone). So if you are to take Hillary at her word, then yeah, my paraphrasing is pretty much spot on. Although if her words get legs in the media, and if polls start to show a negative public outlook because of what she said, I confident her political advisors will be coming out, toot sweet, with a clarification about what she “really said.”

What's so great about Hillary? She was a terrible secretary of state.

Manach

Her State record depends on how you'd perceive her based on one's world view.

From a narrow perspective of say Digital rights, on one hand she praised and supported various tools to allow data to be shared and by-pass restrictions in authoritarian countries. On the other hand, she protested in strongest terms the Wikileaks site for sharing data on US operations.

daUbiq

Manach wrote: »

Her State record depends on how you'd perceive her based on one's world view.

From a narrow perspective of say Digital rights, on one hand she praised and supported various tools to allow data to be shared and by-pass restrictions in authoritarian countries. On the other hand, she protested in strongest terms the Wikileaks site for sharing data on US operations.

Sounds like a typically hypocritical American politician then... :rolleyes: You should\must do this (or we will carpet bomb you country) but we don't because we're protecting american interests (by carpet bombing your country)!

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

She didn’t say “understand,” “comprehend,” or “discern;” she said “empathize” (to have the same feelings as another person : to feel empathy for someone). So if you are to take Hillary at her word, then yeah, my paraphrasing is pretty much spot on. Although if her words get legs in the media, and if polls start to show a negative public outlook because of what she said, I confident her political advisors will be coming out, toot sweet, with a clarification about what she “really said.”

No, your paraphrasing is your opinion therefore not spot on.
Her quote is one of the most intelligent and objective comments I've heard from an American politician in a long time.
You can try and twist it for political points all you want but try and putting country first not party politics and you may see this outlook is what's needed for a better worldwide future not just a republican future.

Also if you actually include the full sentance, she states "trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view"
So this clearly states there are limits, no rational person can empathize with a suicide bomber but we need to understand what gets them to this point and how to prevent it because clearly the current methods are not being entirely effective.

And let's be honest here, does anyone really think Hillary Clinton would be soft in these regards.
I myself may agree with the statement in principle but I also find it very hard to understand and empathize with their point of view, religion as a whole doesn't make sense to me but this extremism is just mind blowing (pardon the pun).
Some of the acts of violence currently going on around the world are inexcusable and I feel a zero tolerance approach may be needed.
It's not an easy situation to solve but I know whether it be Hillary or GOP, they will do everything in their power to keep the US citizens safe. It's the long term approach that will prove difficult to solve.

Amerika

Carcharodon wrote: »

No, your paraphrasing is your opinion therefore not spot on.
Her quote is one of the most intelligent and objective comments I've heard from an American politician in a long time.
You can try and twist it for political points all you want but try and putting country first not party politics and you may see this outlook is what's needed for a better worldwide future not just a republican future.

Also if you actually include the full sentance, she states "trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view"
So this clearly states there are limits, no rational person can empathize with a suicide bomber but we need to understand what gets them to this point and how to prevent it because clearly the current methods are not being entirely effective.

And let's be honest here, does anyone really think Hillary Clinton would be soft in these regards.
I myself may agree with the statement in principle but I also find it very hard to understand and empathize with their point of view, religion as a whole doesn't make sense to me but this extremism is just mind blowing (pardon the pun).
Some of the acts of violence currently going on around the world are inexcusable and I feel a zero tolerance approach may be needed.
It's not an easy situation to solve but I know whether it be Hillary or GOP, they will do everything in their power to keep the US citizens safe. It's the long term approach that will prove difficult to solve.

Hillary chooses her words carefully. "Empathy" was not a slip of the tongue... and so many other appropriate words were available to support your contention.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary chooses her words carefully. "Empathy" was not a slip of the tongue...

How does this compare with Sarah Palin's "Refudiate?"

Carcharodon

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary chooses her words carefully. "Empathy" was not a slip of the tongue... and so many other appropriate words were available to support your contention.

Really ??? The use of the word "empathy" is what has you all up in a twist ? This is what Republicans see as the important issues these days...

daUbiq

I don't believe it matters who the president is... it's just show business at this stage and the president is a figure head used to distract the population. Clinton would be as good or bad as any other warmonger.

Black Swan

Looks like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie will be in the presidential race for the GOP nomination 2016.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Looks like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie will be in the presidential race for the GOP nomination 2016.

I really look forward to another 2 years of Romney comparing himself to Reagan.

I've been convinced for a long time now Jeb is going to get the nomination. He is a very logical choice.. His name isn't the handicap it's made out to be, the GOP base have strangely fond memories of GW.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

How does this compare with Sarah Palin's "Refudiate?"

They're about the same... in more ways than one, you betcha.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Looks like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, and Chris Christie will be in the presidential race for the GOP nomination 2016.

Don't forget Rand Paul.

20Cent

Prediction:

Elizabeth Warren V's Romney.

Warren to win.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

Prediction:

Elizabeth Warren V's Romney.

Warren to win.

Of the list above, I think Romney is the only one Warren could beat.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

I really look forward to another 2 years of Romney comparing himself to Reagan.

I've been convinced for a long time now Jeb is going to get the nomination. He is a very logical choice.. His name isn't the handicap it's made out to be, the GOP base have strangely fond memories of GW.

I could see it happening. There really is not any clear front runner in terms of who will be the Republican candidate so its anybody's guess at this early stage.