2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Overheal

Presidential politics will be consumed with Paris for the next while.

Manach

alaimacerc wrote: »

I assume you're referring here to How Democratic is the American Constitution?. To which Dahl's broad conclusion seems to be, "not very". So not at all a good source for a "not a bug" argument.

Offhand it was "On Democracy".

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

None. I even think they'll all run away from ObamaCare faster than a speeding bullet. And I don't believe it was even brought up in the Democratic debates. The media wouldn't want to make Democrats look bad, ya know.

The burning question that the "liberal" media failed to ask being... what? The moderators are supposed to ask questions that are actually questions, not just provide heckling from an sufficiently rightist position to satisfy a skewed idea of "balance".

But I think Hillary hopes ObamaCare fails, so she can institute a single payer system... HillaryCare 2.0.

Really? Wouldn't a more reasonable hypothesis be that people that don't think it goes far enough would hope that it beds down enough that gradualist tinkering -- like adding a government-provided option -- will improve it?

If critics from the right are anticipating that opposition to the ACA will boomerang and lead to a still-more unacceptable outcome, one wonders about their good faith.

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

It's uncertain why anyone makes an issue of executive orders issued by Obama when compared to former presidents, given that Obama's average per year is the lowest of presidents since Grover Cleveland-I many presidents and years ago.

It's technically uncertain, given the "windows into men's souls" problem. But if you had to, it seems like something it'd be possible to make an informed guess regarding.

alaimacerc

Overheal wrote: »

Remind me again how many times congress/the senate tried to pass some type of Stop Obamacare Act?

Apparently some such efforts have foundered due to Democratic filibusters (which is essentially the same supermajority problem, in different form), and others have, hilariously, failed to attract sufficient Republican support, on "doesn't go far enough" grounds.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

And wouldn’t it just be a waste of time for Congress to submit legislation to the president when he already declared ahead of time that he would veto a bill, and Congress wouldn’t have enough votes to overcome the veto?

And of course, wasting time and grandstanding displays of partisanship would be entirely antithetical to Congress!

If the Republicans thought they could make political capital out of "forcing" the use the veto of something that were genuinely unpopular in the country -- and could stop fighting amongst themselves in their successive lurches to the right to be able to actually do it -- clearly it's what they'd do.

Thargor

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

That is from earlier in the year, still a bit pot and kettle for a US presidential candidate to make comments about shootings in other countries.

Ah crap how did I not spot the date, I hate getting taken in by Reddit sorry.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

The US is utterly dependent on the federal government, and thus can't be bothered to vote for it? I can't help but think there's not a great deal of logical connection here, so much as just gluing two rather dissonant talking points together.

In particular, how would this account for US voter participation being low even by the standards of Western democracies? Surely by your reasoning, it would be even lower in supposedly still less "self-reliant" Austria and Denmark? As opposed to vastly higher, as is actually the case.

I think it speaks volumes that the reaction of a certain segment to this lamentable situation is to pass voter suppression measures, which are certain to worsen it, are demographically discriminatory, and are excused by addressing a "voter fraud" issue that seems to be so minimal as to be literally insignificant.

The turnout from the older generation is much higher then the younger generation in the us. A great number of the younger generation, in my opinion, doesn’t much care about politics. I believe they want the government to take care of them, and aren’t engaged in politics. Take a look at the college protests now going on. Free this, free that, and hurt feelings? Perhaps it’s time to raise the voting age to 25.

Ah yes, that old voter suppression bogeyman. Personally I think having elections on Tuesdays rather then the weekends plays a much bigger part in low turnout.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

The burning question that the "liberal" media failed to ask being... what? The moderators are supposed to ask questions that are actually questions, not just provide heckling from an sufficiently rightist position to satisfy a skewed idea of "balance".

How about something like this... All the projections used to get ObamaCare passed into law were wrong, premium costs haven’t been contained and lowered as promised, it is costing the US taxpayer a lot of money despite the promise to be cost neutral, enrollment is dismal, and some legitimate reports are now claiming it might collapse under it’s own weight in a few short years unless massive changes are made to it. Your response?

Really? Wouldn't a more reasonable hypothesis be that people that don't think it goes far enough would hope that it beds down enough that gradualist tinkering -- like adding a government-provided option -- will improve it?

If critics from the right are anticipating that opposition to the ACA will boomerang and lead to a still-more unacceptable outcome, one wonders about their good faith.

Not just critics on the right but the majority of adults are opposed to ObamaCare. Disapproval remains higher than approval on average, at 47% against to 44% for. I wonder what it will be in the coming months when many people find out they have been dropped of ObamaCare policies and are looking at over 30% increases in premiums.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

And of course, wasting time and grandstanding displays of partisanship would be entirely antithetical to Congress!

If the Republicans thought they could make political capital out of "forcing" the use the veto of something that were genuinely unpopular in the country -- and could stop fighting amongst themselves in their successive lurches to the right to be able to actually do it -- clearly it's what they'd do.

The GOP are a bunch of wimps, IMO. I can somewhat understand their reasoning, but they were elected to enact reasonable legislation and submit it to the President. Let Obama veto them all... Who cares if he does... Do your job Congress! The republicans are taking this new era of working together with Democrats to get things done way too far, and it will cause them to lose seats.

Amerika

I turned off the Democrat debate Saturday, and went back to the news and analysis of the terror attacks in Paris, in order to avoid my head from exploding. Not one of the Democrats can even bring themselves to use the term “radical Islam”. How can we fight our enemies when we can’t even call them what they are? Bernie Sanders is claiming climate change is directly related to the rise of global terrorism. Clinton is fighting ISIS by taking large donations by Wall Street into her campaigns since 9/11. And 9/11 is America’s fight... and ISIS is not. Bring in even more Syrian refugees into the country and do nothing (other than rhetoric) about Putin continuing to bomb our allies in the area. God help us!

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

The turnout from the older generation is much higher then the younger generation in the us. A great number of the younger generation, in my opinion, doesn’t much care about politics. I believe they want the government to take care of them, and aren’t engaged in politics. Take a look at the college protests now going on. Free this, free that, and hurt feelings? Perhaps it’s time to raise the voting age to 25.

Ah yes, that old voter suppression bogeyman. Personally I think having elections on Tuesdays rather then the weekends plays a much bigger part in low turnout.

Very true a great number of young people do indeed not vote as do a great many Americans period. The turnout for elections in off years and in mid term years in the US is a joke and an embarrassment for a country claiming to be a democracy. In fact even the voter turnout in presidential elections is an embarrassment. In 2008 the turnout was 57% and that is the highest since 1968 when it was 61%. Contrast this with for example the Irish voter turnout at general elections which rarely falls below 70%.
Your right young people do not care much about politcs very often at least some do not. Many certainly have given up on a system that is corrut and rigged to work for the few and not the many. So your solution to what is clearly a problem is to punish and take away the vote. That kind of mindset is exactly what is part of the problem.
Indeed lets take a look at the college protests. I mean how dare students raise up and call out the institutional racism which is part of some college campus' across the United States. How dare students raise up and demand free education or at least dramaticaly more affordable education. Instead of the current situation where college tuition just keeps on going up and up and up pushing more Americans out of third level education and or leaving them sadled with massive debts when they graduate. Which thus also puts a massive drag on the economy as these students when they graduate with such debt cannot contribute to the economy very much as they are stuck paying off debts. So they maybe stay at home and don't buy a home or rent. They keep a car much longer rather then buy a new one etc etc due to the massive college debts. But how dare they protest.
As for elections being on a Tuesday. Make it a national holiday.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

How about something like this... All the projections used to get ObamaCare passed into law were wrong, premium costs haven’t been contained and lowered as promised, it is costing the US taxpayer a lot of money despite the promise to be cost neutral, enrollment is dismal, and some legitimate reports are now claiming it might collapse under it’s own weight in a few short years unless massive changes are made to it. Your response?

ObamaCare essentially cloned RomneyCare, but instead of only affecting MA, it had been sent to all states under the ACA (when Democrats had 1-party control of both congress and presidency). So when you criticise ObamaCare, you criticise RomneyCare at the same time. Both plans demand that citizens enroll in a private sector for profit medical insurance corporation policy (that ultimately profits that industry and their equity holders) or be punished by government.

But when Republicans attack ObamaCare, I rarely (if ever) hear them mention RomneyCare, especially when some members of the GOP have been contemplating the resurrection of Mitt Romney as a late entry 2016 presidential candidate to solve their outside established GOP Trump and Carson problems.

Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare turned out to be expensive plans for their affected governments, way beyond the cost savings promised for both plans when signed into law by Republican governor Mitt Romney and Democrat president Barack Obama. Aside from the fact that RomneyCare affects MA, and ObamaCare the US, the major difference for continuing campaign polemics is PARTY, one being Republican and the other Democrat, and party members are to cheer for their team and boo the opposing team (just like during NFL games).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps it’s time to raise the voting age to 25.

Are you are addressing the maturity of the citizen in terms of their competence to make decisions on their own by age, and be held responsible accordingly? Given this rationale, if you raise the voting age for the 2016 presidential elections to 25, shouldn't you also raise the military enlistment age from 18 to 25, and the drinking age from 21 to 25, and ability to be held contractually and financially responsible to 25, and the age where a citizen can be criminally prosecuted as an adult to 25? Then again most Americans don't see the inconsistencies in their capricious and arbitrary age distinctions, where a citizen can enlist in military and die for their country at 18, but not have a beer until 21.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you are addressing the maturity of the citizen in terms of their competence to make decisions on their own by age, and be held responsible accordingly? Given this rationale, if you raise the voting age for the 2016 presidential elections to 25, shouldn't you also raise the military enlistment age from 18 to 25, and the drinking age from 21 to 25, and ability to be held contractually and financially responsible to 25, and the age where a citizen can be criminally prosecuted as an adult to 25? Then again most Americans don't see the inconsistencies in their capricious and arbitrary age distinctions, where a citizen can enlist in military and die for their country at 18, but not have a beer until 21.

Nope. I think 25 is a good age to decide who best to serve our country in political positions. As you stated, the age to join the military is 18 and to drink 21. Those ages best determined to handle each responsibility. We also have minimum age restrictions on certain political positions. Not everything fits neatly into a one-size box.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Very true a great number of young people do indeed not vote as do a great many Americans period. The turnout for elections in off years and in mid term years in the US is a joke and an embarrassment for a country claiming to be a democracy. In fact even the voter turnout in presidential elections is an embarrassment. In 2008 the turnout was 57% and that is the highest since 1968 when it was 61%. Contrast this with for example the Irish voter turnout at general elections which rarely falls below 70%.
Your right young people do not care much about politcs very often at least some do not. Many certainly have given up on a system that is corrut and rigged to work for the few and not the many. So your solution to what is clearly a problem is to punish and take away the vote. That kind of mindset is exactly what is part of the problem.
Indeed lets take a look at the college protests. I mean how dare students raise up and call out the institutional racism which is part of some college campus' across the United States. How dare students raise up and demand free education or at least dramaticaly more affordable education. Instead of the current situation where college tuition just keeps on going up and up and up pushing more Americans out of third level education and or leaving them sadled with massive debts when they graduate. Which thus also puts a massive drag on the economy as these students when they graduate with such debt cannot contribute to the economy very much as they are stuck paying off debts. So they maybe stay at home and don't buy a home or rent. They keep a car much longer rather then buy a new one etc etc due to the massive college debts. But how dare they protest.
As for elections being on a Tuesday. Make it a national holiday.

Here is Neil Cavuto interviewing a college student who wants free. It is an embarrassment. The maturity level is not there, for someone considered to be a spokesperson.

Manach

When talking about arbitrary age distinctions, it seems to not take into account what could be placed there instead. For instance, during a lecture it was was argued that should distinctions should be make based on the maturity of the individual. Leaving aside the various interntational conventions (UN's rights of the child etc.) such as system would be so open to mis-application that deciding on an arbitrary age is the simplest.

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

Here is Neil Cavuto interviewing a college student who wants free. It is an embarrassment. The maturity level is not there, for someone considered to be a spokesperson.

Considering they vet people that they interview. It's a shame he didn't get somebody on that could actually back up what they are saying. At least he didn't do a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity on her.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare were seriously flawed plans from taxpayer standpoints that needs to be addressed during the 2016 presidential debates whenever they raise the issue of healthcare reform. Regarding an earlier evaluation of RomneyCare:

A state report says Bay State premiums rose 9.7 percent between 2009 and 2011, while the value of that coverage shrank 5.1 percent.

“What we’ve seen over the last couple of years is that premiums are growing faster than inflation and at the same time, the quality of the benefit is declining,” said Aron Boros, whose state agency, the Center for Health Information and Analysis, published the report. “So you’re not only paying more, you’re getting less.”

Can we expect the same or worse from ObamaCare financially from a taxpayer standpoint, be they businesses or individuals? Probably worse financially, given that MA was more advanced in terms of healthcare reform when they adopted RomneyCare than many of the other states affected by the ACA today.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Here is Neil Cavuto interviewing a college student who wants free. It is an embarrassment. The maturity level is not there, for someone considered to be a spokesperson.

Haven't watched this but presumably they brought someone in with no political experience, as a strawman to the narrative that free college is a stupid idea.

That shtick is a little off key. Bernie Sanders, a large proponent of 'Free' college tuition for Title IV schools has the tuition changes paid for in his plan with a <1% tax on Wall Street speculative trading. Calling the whole thing "free" is a drive-by-media way of attacking the issue by willfully ignoring the actualities of the topic - like the fact that it would be paid for.

What was Cavuto's stance on the Iraq and Afghan wars? Did he wonder where that money was coming from? Did he attack our veterans for expecting "free" health care?

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

Considering they vet people that they interview. It's a shame he didn't get somebody on that could actually back up what they are saying. At least he didn't do a Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity on her.

If you look at her identification, it notes "Million Student March National Organizer." Who would have better to bring on, or should have known more?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

If you look at her identification, it notes "Million Student March National Organizer." Who would have better to bring on, or should have known more?

I recall when Sarah Palin was running as Republican VP with John McCain, she didn't do any better than this so-called student leader (or spokesperson or whatever) when interviewed by Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric. Furthermore, it's now popular with "outsider" Republican candidates like Trump and Carson to not bother with details or adequate preparation in a topic when making uninformed but mob appeal blusterous statements to the public. How is this student any different from Palin or Trump or Carson?

There have been many so called "Million (whatever) Marches" in the US, where a lot fewer than a million showed. It's just a label, not a qualification. Besides, in the many student organisations that I have participated in on 3 different campuses at Trinners and across the pond, all too often the media in their rush to press or air (to beat other competing media organisations) picks a student to be spokesperson or leader or grand supremo or whatever. I remember my Da talking about such a famous (or infamous) media rush and arbitrary appointment occurring in the US 1960's Vietnam protest movement, were Mark Rudd had been picked by the media to speak for the protestors (when before the media's pick, he was not important to the movement). All of a sudden Rudd is leader, ha! Thanks to media.

Why didn't the media pick Black Swannie as spokesperson for the "Million (Whatever) March?" Probably because she has better things to do at university, like get an education?

alaimacerc

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your overall conclusion may be correct, and I have to confess to only a certain amount of enthusiasm for the Kremlinology of the detail of their statements, but the practical differences with this are:

a) Determining who the "serious" candidates are. Have you noticed who the runaway leaders in the primary polls are? And,

b) Attempting to determine what any of them are actually "advocating", with any credibility. The Republican candidate from central casting: i) Originally favoured something very like the ACA before it was "ObamaCare". ii) Has since thundered on about how they'd "repeal every word". Or the eternal classic, "repeal and replace", where what it would be "replaced" with seems to be a Type 1 Ball of Smoke. And iii) would likely do something different again, in the otherwise unhappy event of them being in a position to do something about it.

That's all a tad tricky to triangulate with any particular confidence.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Years late to the party, they have realized what the moderates have understood all along. And they were criticized, the whole time, for not having a solid plan to propose that would replace it. Even Sanders has said on numerous occasions he would rather have a Medicare-for-all single-payer program.

The way the political winds are blowing, the RNC will probably work successfully to de-seat Clinton as the symbolic frontrunner of the DNC. What that's going to leave them is to campaign against Senator Bernie Sanders and I wonder how they plan to do it, given that a battery of negative attack ads against him will almost assuredly blow back in their faces, and he does not run negative ads himself. It would be seen as crony capitalism from the corporate backers and the SuperPACs. They'll actually have to engage him on the issues, and I don't think they have a real game plan for that.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

The turnout from the older generation is much higher then the younger generation in the us.

And pretty much everywhere else. Certainly in Ireland. I'd wager the same is true if you go back a few generations. i.e. it's not a cohort effect, but an age one. Any correlation with your "state dependency" contention seems entirely absent, much less any actual casual link.

Perhaps it’s time to raise the voting age to 25.

Ah yes, that old voter suppression bogeyman.

Given that you've just openly suggested direct blanket disenfranchisement, I think it's a bit more of a "bogeyman". Sure, that would boost the percentage turnout -- entirely by lowering the denominator, mind you, rather than doing anything at all to increase democratic engagement.

But perhaps you're thinking too small here: I've seen assorted right-wingers suggest that only married couples -- hetero married, mind! -- should be able to vote. That'd get rid of all those pesky young single women and their immature notions of "reproductive rights", right? Good for turnout figures, and good for gerrymandering the "right" result, too!

Personally I think having elections on Tuesdays rather then the weekends plays a much bigger part in low turnout.

Than what, your "state dependency" kite-flying? I wouldn't doubt it. Perhaps it's even a good idea. But there's a certain amount of "Mon-Fri worker privilege" embedded here too, isn't there?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

I recall when Sarah Palin was running as Republican VP with John McCain, she didn't do any better than this so-called student leader (or spokesperson or whatever) when interviewed by Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric. Furthermore, it's now popular with "outsider" Republican candidates like Trump and Carson to not bother with details or adequate preparation in a topic when making uninformed but mob appeal blusterous statements to the public. How is this student any different from Palin or Trump or Carson?

There have been many so called "Million (whatever) Marches" in the US, where a lot fewer than a million showed. It's just a label, not a qualification. Besides, in the many student organisations that I have participated in on 3 different campuses at Trinners and across the pond, all too often the media in their rush to press or air (to beat other competing media organisations) picks a student to be spokesperson or leader or grand supremo or whatever. I remember my Da talking about such a famous (or infamous) media rush and arbitrary appointment occurring in the US 1960's Vietnam protest movement, were Mark Rudd had been picked by the media to speak for the protestors (when before the media's pick, he was not important to the movement). All of a sudden Rudd is leader, ha! Thanks to media.

Why didn't the media pick Black Swannie as spokesperson for the "Million (Whatever) March?" Probably because she has better things to do at university, like get an education?

You really can't compare this to the Palin interviews. The whole problem with the Couric interview was because she failed to list the newspapers she reads. Come on... really?

How do you think Black Swannie would have answered the question regarding how the Million (Whatever) March's demands would be paid for?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You really can't compare this to the Palin interviews. The whole problem with the Couric interview was because she failed to list the newspapers she reads. Come on... really?

How do you think Black Swannie would have answered the question regarding how the Million (Whatever) March's demands would be paid for?

If the Republicans argue, "That even if you do the math, you could never support free college tuition" ... they're blatantly admitting that in no way, shape, or form, could students as a whole community, expect to be able to pay off their educations inside of a reasonable amount of time (3 years - the amount of time conservatives claim such a program would remain funded for).

....but that's not what they're saying. Watch your video again,

7 minutes, 43 seconds into - a video that I will deconstruct later - Cavuto says 'If you taxed the 1%, and took all of their wealth'

Mind blown, right? The whole counter-argument to this boils down to "taxing the elite earners alone will not solve America's problem [in this case tution]." Well, damn right it won't. You have to get the people motivated to understand that there will be across the board modifications, scaling from the top incomes down to the middle class and so on. The girl in the video expresses that same sentimentality (see 5:00).

Cavuto's entire house of cards hinges on the deflection that it's about "attacking the 1%."

He also invokes Greece. What did Greece produce? How can you believe in American Exceptionalism (this country is great, everyone should be hear, we have the best land, the best people, the best opportunities) and at the same time assume that tax bumps to fund critical societal functions would be enough to cause affluent people to leave such a fantastic greatest country on Earth.

Now about the video. First of all: Cavuto is an asshole to this girl. Primarily though, this piece was set up to further the narrative that Cavuto and the team at FOX want their viewers to hear - even if it is perpetrated on willful ignorance. First of all, she's treated as a total prop. Right off the bat, from the coldest way to introduce a "guest" on TV, Cavuto asks, "Whaddya want." In and of itself a politically loaded question. She responded to it fairly.

Notice how at every point in the segment that her argument builds any sort of momentum or traction, Cavuto is right on top of it with another question that in no way follows up with what her response was - 56 seconds, 2:09 (where she says the same thing I just did Re: American Exceptionalism), 3:59, 4:19*, 4:29*, 4:40*, (*trying to say the answer at 5:00), which is cut off at 5:25 because it was starting to establish its purpose as an answer, until finally she is cut off by the AV team after 9:00 for trying to make the point that - any NRA would make - that if there are abuses in the system, the people serve as a check and a balance. And just like that, his other sock-puppet completely mischaracterized her argument immediately afterward.

6:24 Cavuto admits blatantly, if we tax the rich they're going to run off with all the wealth and poof, gone. Meaning the admission that billionaires are literally just in it for themselves and so, incidentally, should we even allow such extreme hoarding of wealth? At what point do you connect the dots and realize people are dying in poverty while billionaires are funding pet projects like jetpacks and space planes (both real things, thanks to science). What the girl is saying though - and I'm saying - is that if you think where you're at is so great, then you don't need a gold plated basement to be secure and happy and have your kids and descendants be happy. I mean jetpacks are ****ing cool, gold chandeliers the whole back 9, its great, but it shouldn't happen if there are people under your level of success, in your neighborhood, are dying from medically preventable situations that they cannot afford treatment for.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

You really can't compare this to the Palin interviews. The whole problem with the Couric interview was because she failed to list the newspapers she reads. Come on... really?

What candidate for the nation's 2nd highest office would write crib notes on their hand to remember what the priorities of a Republican congress should be during an important public speech that had been scheduled months in advance other than a young child in grade school and Sarah Palin?

Amazingfun

As opposed to the geniuses like Obama and Hillary that read word for word from teleprompters?