2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

..and I hope Hillary doesn't win as she said she is an enemy of big pharma - strange since these companies are part responsible for humans living longer and longer.

I want a Republican president.

jobbridge4life

RobertKK wrote: »

..and I hope Hillary doesn't win as she said she is an enemy of big pharma - strange since these companies are part responsible for humans living longer and longer.

I want a Republican president.

And which of the rag bag of loons, charaltans and incompetents running for the nomination is suitable?

The only Republican remotely decent enough to be president is John Kasich and right now he does not have a chance.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is largely the point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-frequency_trading#Risks_and_controversy

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MightyMandarin

Black Swan wrote: »

When all is said and done November 2016, the last thing the Americans need is one party rule, with one party controlling both the Executive and Congress, along with eventual stacking of the US Supreme Court with one party favourites. One party rule circumvents the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government. Of course, be they Republicans or be they Democrats, they strive for one party rule, and try to convince the American people that one party rule is the best thing since sliced bread. Removing checks and balances increases the likelihood of abuse and corruption by the controlling one party. It's happened in the past, and it's very likely to occur in the future. The last time one party rule occurred, ObamaCare (aka RomneyCare) was forced through, truly a healthcare abomination that ultimately benefits private sector for profit medical insurance corporations, and not the people it's intended for, using government power to punish average American citizens that do not join the plan (for both RomneyCare when it existed in MA, and ObamaCare now in US).

I'm curious as to why you think Obamacare is such a disaster as you make it out to be. Whilst there are some cases where people who, for whatever ridiculous reason, didn't want health insurance and were forced to get it, or people who were forced to get a more expensive plan, I think the benefits of having millions more Americans on healthcare plans cannot be understated.

It's well known that healthcare is very expensive in America in comparison to other developed countries, so when low earners are diagnosed with serious illness or have a bad accident it often results in the case that they have to sell whatever possesions they might have, including their house. Obamacare helps to stop things like this from happening.

Overheal

Even if a single party sweeped a general election, I doubt it is a situation which would last very long due to pressure from the constituencies, who would be far more sensitive to calls to impeach their senators/congressmen, or otherwise compel them to resign (all those "dirty little things" that every politician has that are open secrets but not worthy of going to the mattresses about)

RobertKK

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And which of the rag bag of loons, charaltans and incompetents running for the nomination is suitable?

The only Republican remotely decent enough to be president is John Kasich and right now he does not have a chance.

I don't think any of them are less competent than Hillary or Bernie.

Trump really took down Kasich in the recent debate.

I don't really care who on the Republican side wins the process to being the candidate once they win the election, and I will then enjoy the gnashing of teeth and anger in the Irish media if their beloved Democrats fail.

I don't know what people see in Hillary Clinton, absolute disaster as the secretary of state.

Fr Tod Umptious

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And which of the rag bag of loons, charaltans and incompetents running for the nomination is suitable?

The only Republican remotely decent enough to be president is John Kasich and right now he does not have a chance.

Alas the typical type of terms used here when low information posters try to argue the point with a poster who says they will be supporting the Republicans.

I blame the media.

As I said before here, Bernie Sanders is the loon/charlatan/incompetent to many ordinary Americans.

jobbridge4life

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Alas the typical type of terms used here when low information posters try to argue the point with a poster who says they will be supporting the Republicans.

I blame the media.

As I said before here, Bernie Sanders is the loon/charlatan/incompetent to many ordinary Americans.

And which media would that be? Lets be very clear here. Were I entitled to vote it is likely I would have voted for John McCain in the 2008 election except he went and choose Palin and helped further destroy the Republican party. Its not that they are Republicans its that they are each individually woefully unsuitable to be President except for Mr Kasich as I said but he currently has no hope.

Biblically inspired taxes, climate change denialism, confused 'libertarians', its a shambles.

fr336

I know there's a whole year to go but what the hell's going to happen guys? Things seem so up in the air, even this far out. I thought the consensus was it was going to be Hilary vs Jeb but Jeb seems way outside for the cons and obviously Hilary has got herself into a lot of potential bother! Personally I can't stand either of them though.

Trump for president?? I'm still convinced he's having a bit of a laugh but he does make good points along the way.

Brussels Sprout

Considering they started off with 17 candidates the people on offer for the Republicans are fairly shocking.

Trump and Carson are basically joke candidates. Scott Walker was a victim of them and Bush could be going that way too.

Cruz, Huckabee and Fiorina just seem like dreadful human beings.

John Kasich seems like a decent enough candidate but he's been drowned out by all the noise of the circus that this nomination process has become.

Stuck a bet on Rubio to win the nomination the other day (before the last debate) @ 2.25/1
He's down to 1.375/1 now on Paddy Power so feeling pretty good about that bet (but not particularly about him and his views)

eire4

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I'm curious as to why you think Obamacare is such a disaster as you make it out to be. Whilst there are some cases where people who, for whatever ridiculous reason, didn't want health insurance and were forced to get it, or people who were forced to get a more expensive plan, I think the benefits of having millions more Americans on healthcare plans cannot be understated.

It's well known that healthcare is very expensive in America in comparison to other developed countries, so when low earners are diagnosed with serious illness or have a bad accident it often results in the case that they have to sell whatever possesions they might have, including their house. Obamacare helps to stop things like this from happening.

Medical bills have been the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the United Sates so any reduction in the number of those suffering bankruptcy is to be welcomed. According to the below article published in the Wall Street Journal we can expect to see a decrease in this:


In his 2014 study, Northeastern University law professor Daniel Austin dug into personal bankruptcy filings to figure out what happened after Massachusetts lawmakers made health insurance mandatory in 2005.
His findings? Massachusetts residents who file for bankruptcy protection these days have way less medical debt compared to the rest of the country. The typical Massachusetts person or couple who filed in 2013 had $3,041 in medical debt, while people everywhere else had an average of $8,594 in medical debt.
In fact, he found that Massachusetts is the only state where medical debt isn’t the leading cause of personal bankruptcy. (A loss of income is the No. 1 reason, he found.)
So what does Prof. Austin think will happen with mandatory health care in all 50 states? Could the system designed to give people access to affordable health insurance make families more financially stable and keep them out of bankruptcy?
“It absolutely should show a reduction in bankruptcies [filed] due to medical debt,” Prof. Austin said in an interview Tuesday.

eire4

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think any of them are less competent than Hillary or Bernie.

Trump really took down Kasich in the recent debate.

I don't really care who on the Republican side wins the process to being the candidate once they win the election, and I will then enjoy the gnashing of teeth and anger in the Irish media if their beloved Democrats fail.

I don't know what people see in Hillary Clinton, absolute disaster as the secretary of state.

Not a fan of Hiliary Clinton myself. But how exactly was she a disaster as secretary of state? That is a very strong statement to make.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is fair to say no matter how you look at things there are many cases of voters voting in a way which to a neutral outsider looking in does not seem very rational including not voting to protect ones own interests.


Clearly we will disagree the way you see legislation regarding the financial industry. An industry which has destroyed the lives of tens of thousnds of Americans with continual criminal behaviour and which has shown itself unable to behave in a manner conducive to the welfare of all Americans when not regulated in a strict manner.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well it is unlikely that Sanders will win the Democratic nomination but the claim that if he did cause such a big upset and was the Democratic presidential candidate that Sanders would thus guarantee a Republican would win the general election is simply not borne out by current polls which show Sanders very competitive in a presidential match up with the current Republican leading candidate.


Sanders v Trump:


CNN Sanders 53-44
PPP Draw 44-44
NBC Sanders 52-36
Quinnipiac 47-42 Sanders
Survey USA 44-40 Trump

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

First of all, that was not the question. ...
..
pants on fire' to link individually.

The general point is that the GOP had fair complaint against the way CNBC ran the debate and the ad-hominon questions. Like, I have not heard the 'what is your biggest weakness' question ask of me in an interview for years. If that question is asked, it is basically and indication that the HR person in question doesn't know $hit.

Overheal

jank wrote: »

The general point is that the GOP had fair complaint against the way CNBC ran the debate and the ad-hominon questions. Like, I have not heard the 'what is your biggest weakness' question ask of me in an interview for years. If that question is asked, it is basically and indication that the HR person in question doesn't know $hit.

“If you look at the questions only, there’s frankly not much of a difference… including Fox, which is the great oracle of the RNC.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-smerconish-not-much-of-a-difference-between-cnbcs-debate-and-foxs/

20Cent wrote: »

If they are the GOP debates why don't they organise moderators that are sympathetic to them?

Who do they want as moderators? Limbaugh? Hannity? How is a president going to handle diplomacy if he's been coddled to only anticipate softball questions. "You're not doing your job while campaigning, shouldn't you let someone else fit your Senatorial shoes with respect to your campaign?" "Your tax plans as proclaimed have some apparent inconsistencies, could you clear those up?"

No the condidates just want questions that set them up for pre-prepared one liners and zinger soundbytes. "Mr. Bush, many have said you would make a great leader. How will you make America great again?" If the candidates want to answer such empty questions, they can post a blog on their website.

Overheal

Ben Carson proving he might be a competent neurosurgeon, but that's about it.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-baldwin-does-ben-carson-understand-the-definition-of-debate/

RobertKK

eire4 wrote: »

Not a fan of Hiliary Clinton myself. But how exactly was she a disaster as secretary of state? That is a very strong statement to make.

She supported the whole Arab Spring disaster, it only worked in Tunisia, everywhere else had chaos. She supported the Muslim brotherhood which was very questionable despite them winning an election.
Wanted to bomb Syria to remove Assad, as if the opposition were saints.
Totally ignores the threat that Russia posed, part of an administration who laughed at Romney who said Russia were the number 1 geopolitical issue, within two years Russia had annexed a part of Ukraine, again asleep on the job.
Supported the people of Benghazi despite videos coming out of Al Qaeda executing Gaddafi mercenaries, so was it any surprise the US ambassador and some of his staff died there, when you are that stupid with everything being black and white as it seemed for Mrs Clinton. Now all the Libyans have is chaos.
When the people of Bahrain rose up against their rulers, we saw her double standards, kept fairly quiet as the rulers in questions are allies.

She is incompetent and was asleep on the job.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed they do, so voting in terms of your own best interests seems the obvious and rational choice for you November 2016.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most wise investors followed your course of action and have profited accordingly. Health care corporations have exhibited double digit increases in costs to patients (and health care plans) in USA, and more than likely will continue to do so under Obamacare. I found it interesting that what JNJ charges for many pharmaceuticals (that are identical) cost significantly more in the USA than in Canada; i.e., they charge what the market will bare.

Manach

eire4 wrote: »

Not a fan of Hiliary Clinton myself. But how exactly was she a disaster as secretary of state?

It depends.
On the one hand, compares favouriably with her predecessors, she was an internationalist. From my understand of International law and having attending a lecture by her legal counsel, Clinton worked within the framework of nations to build American power but in a way that did not ruffle feathers and in concert with other countries. She was respected for it.
On the other, from an understanding of IT privacy and trade policies, she was a supportive of punishing alleged IPR violations in treaties and was supportive of the information gathering network that people like Manning and Snowden exposed.

So not a disaster and her record would be a good one to run on but was not spotless.

Black Swan

30 October 2015 Trump resumes lead in IBD/TIPP poll after having fallen behind Carson in last one a month ago. Now Trump 28%, Carson 23%, and Rubio a distant 3rd at 11%. Jeb Bush falls further behind now at 6%.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fascinating. Republicans have such selective memory.

Pre-Obamacare insurance for almost everyone was awful.

At our firm we used to have a meeting organized by HR every year where some representative from our insurance company would cheerfully detail how much our premiums/co-pays, etc would rise and how the benefits were being cut.

Every year. and if you didnt like it. You could quit and have no insurance at all.

SO without some comparison with how much your 20 something would pay for private unregulated insurance over their working life your "estimate" is pretty much nonsense.

To ignore that is to misunderstand one of the primary reasons Obamacare passed into law. Its about more than uninsured people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rnc-telemundo-debate_56376b53e4b0c66bae5cea72

Looks as though the GOP is at risk of repeating the same old mistakes. I thought this was the party that never forgets? I would actually be very disappointed if the Republicans tried to completely shut out the Hispanic vote.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You tend to take the view that governments are at fault for not creating the laws which would have prevented the financial crisis, right? As in, that it's downright insane to expect people to behave ethically unless they're forced to by law?

If that's the case, then surely you would support someone like Sanders who seeks to introduce those regulations?

Genuinely not taking a shot at you here, but I honestly sometimes get the feeling that you don't actually mind if the financial sector occasionally pulls a 2008 as long as the "right people" manage to steer clear of the explosion. Again, not trolling - that's what I'm getting from your posts. You believe that it's lack of regulation which causes financial meltdowns, yet you oppose regulation - ergo, you don't particularly care about financial meltdowns?

If I have this wrong, please explain how. Preferably in more than just a "lol you're being ridiculous" comment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dohnjoe

RobertKK wrote: »

She supported the whole Arab Spring disaster, it only worked in Tunisia, everywhere else had chaos. She supported the Muslim brotherhood which was very questionable despite them winning an election.
Wanted to bomb Syria to remove Assad, as if the opposition were saints.
Totally ignores the threat that Russia posed, part of an administration who laughed at Romney who said Russia were the number 1 geopolitical issue, within two years Russia had annexed a part of Ukraine, again asleep on the job.
Supported the people of Benghazi despite videos coming out of Al Qaeda executing Gaddafi mercenaries, so was it any surprise the US ambassador and some of his staff died there, when you are that stupid with everything being black and white as it seemed for Mrs Clinton. Now all the Libyans have is chaos.
When the people of Bahrain rose up against their rulers, we saw her double standards, kept fairly quiet as the rulers in questions are allies.

She is incompetent and was asleep on the job.

No big Hillary fan but to give her some defense

Most democratic people, politicians and nations generally support protest against corrupt or autocratic regimes on principle. The Egyptians democratically voted in the MB, as unpalatable as MB might have been, the election was legitimate, likewise support on principle. She did criticise the government of Bahrain over the protests, repeatedly.

As for action against Assad, she advocated supporting the moderate rebels early in the conflict (not some Iraq style invasion) and she had a point, Obama was reluctant to do so and the void was since filled with Islamists

Libya was international action lest we forget, she took responsibility for Benghazi, faired decently on the recent grilling (which seemed quite politically motivated more than anything)

As for Russia, well most countries were caught by surprise, but what were they realistically to do? besides she left office in 2013 before the real Russian issues