[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[DK]

No. Too narrow and too arbitrary.

There's millions of apartment dwellers and such who pay someone else's taxes indirectly through rent, and disenfranchising millions because of their lack of wealth is pure suck.

Don't like how the unfortunate, poor, working-class, and indigent vote? Come up with better platforms.

It's a sure-fire way to make the world of the 2013 movie "Elysium" a reality. Of course, there's always a chance that the disenfranchised working poor might reach a breaking point one day and have a revolution.

 

[Danoff]

What rights to rich people have in the US that poor people do not have?

Well first of all identify the meaning of rich.

Rich person or Rich person(Corporation)

It's your statement, you define it. The concept of rights does not significantly change between one person and many people.

Citigroup
Crime: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/prosecuting-wall-street/

Reward: https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/96-citigroup

Ofcourse you have worded your question in a way which isn't possible to prove otherwise, but i'll just use reality here.

This sums up basically the whole cause of the crash in the first place and every Major bank at the time was in on it.


Then you get this nonsense: http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Nagy_MLR.pdf

As long as a Non living thing is given Human rights it's trampling on others, laws in place to stop this criminal activity defended by it's ability to claim something is human when it clearly isn't.

Corporations are people in America remember?

They're groups of people. What's Apple's social security number? Who did they vote for in the last election? Did Apple register for the draft?

So you admit to trying to get down to specifics to avoid your original point?

As long as this exists my point stands

My original point is that rich people in the US do not have rights that poor people lack. Corporations are groups of people (rich and poor) which have limited rights that extend from the fact that they're comprised of the group. To say that a rich person within the group benefits disproportionately to a poor person within the group is an odd statement. The notion that a rich person within the group received protection because they were within the group is no different than a poor person within the group also receiving protection because they were within the group. It has nothing to do with wealth.

I will concede that corporations are offered bailouts because they're large (and while not necessarily rights, that's favoritism for large vs. small companies). However, bailouts are directed to large companies that are poor, going backrupt even. "Too big to fail" very much implies "failing". You don't see bailouts being offered to companies that are turning blockbuster profits.

So even to the extent that you want to argue about "rights" given to corporations (which are really just an extension of the rights of the group), the favoritism is for the poor companies.

 

[mustafur]

My original point is that rich people in the US do not have rights that poor people lack. Corporations are groups of people (rich and poor) which have limited rights that extend from the fact that they're comprised of the group. To say that a rich person within the group benefits disproportionately to a poor person within the group is an odd statement. The notion that a rich person within the group received protection because they were within the group is no different than a poor person within the group also receiving protection because they were within the group. It has nothing to do with wealth.

I will concede that corporations are offered bailouts because they're large (and while not necessarily rights, that's favoritism for large vs. small companies). However, bailouts are directed to large companies that are poor, going backrupt even. "Too big to fail" very much implies "failing". You don't see bailouts being offered to companies that are turning blockbuster profits.

So even to the extent that you want to argue about "rights" given to corporations (which are really just an extension of the rights of the group), the favoritism is for the poor companies.

You did Claim Bernie Sanders was about limiting the rights of the Rich to favour the Rest.

The reality is he is actually talking about the Rich that get protected by the Corporation Person laws, combined the rights and privileges far out weights the rest of the populous.

The Actual Rich person has no rights being effected that is inconsistent which which has already happened and is happening.

 

[GTPorsche]

Ben Carson is skipping the next GOP debate as he sees "no way forward", but he's not ending his campaign.

Someone wake that man up with reality.

 

[DK]

Does anyone know what's up with Richmond, Massachusetts? I see that 2,172 out of 2,173 precincts have reported in both parties' primaries in Massachusetts, but they're the only one yet to do so.

 

[Touring Mars]

Does anyone know what's up with Richmond, Massachusetts? I see that 2,172 out of 2,173 precincts have reported in both parties' primaries in Massachusetts, but they're the only one yet to do so.

Delayed because Bernie Sanders wants to change the name from Richmond to Can't-We-All-Just-Have-The-Same-Mond?

Also, what more does it take for Ben Carson to take a hint!?

 

[GTPorsche]

 

[Danoff]

You did Claim Bernie Sanders was about limiting the rights of the Rich to favour the Rest.

The reality is he is actually talking about the Rich that get protected by the Corporation Person laws, combined the rights and privileges far out weights the rest of the populous.

Can you point to something in his campaign that speaks to this? I want to read specifically what he's advocating.

The Actual Rich person has no rights being effected that is inconsistent which which has already happened and is happening.

Raising taxes on a specific population is a violation of rights - specifically equal protection.

 

[Dotini]

Likely he and the donor class will mount a tardy attempt to remove Trump from the campaign. Politics is war by other means.

Yes, the fun and games are now over for Trump, and he's as good as finished. The establishment has seen its way clear to stick the knife in him and coalesce around Cruz and Rubio. This will be historic and ugly, but you're going to see it happen, live and in color.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Consider this, Sanders and Trump are the same thing. Both refuse to move to the middle, both are plain spoken, anti-establishment types. Both are refusing to appear influenced by lobbyists. Both are outspokenly jerks to segments of the society, willing to trample the minority to appeal to their majority.

But Sanders is probably far more likely to withdraw from the race and endorse Clinton to take on Trump because he realises the value to the Democrat cause than Trump is to withdraw and endorse Cruz or Rubio to take on Clinton. Sure, Trump might be a juggernaut in his own right, but all Clinton has to do is position herself as the adult in the room and she can appeal to moderate Republicans alarmed by Trump's rise to power.

 

[GTPorsche]

Trump has released his healthcare plan.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

 

[Tornado]

Does every one of those tabs end with "make America great again"?

*checks*

Oh wow, they do!






None of those bullet points, at least, sound particularly heinous.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Trump has released his healthcare plan.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Apparently I'm forbidden.

 

[Robin]

I had wondered what Trump's polices were on... you know... all the other important stuff which needs running in a country

 

[squadops]

But Sanders is probably far more likely to withdraw from the race and endorse Clinton to take on Trump because he realises the value to the Democrat cause ...

You mean he realizes he has zero chance, Clinton doesn't stand for anything that he does. He may still indorse her but that would be more of a job security type of thing.

 

[Omnis]

Trump has released his healthcare plan.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Thanks.

5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.

This will never happen, ever. Hospitals will never do this. Believe me, I've spent the past two years exploring and trying to develop a business in the healthcare world. But this also shows that The Donald doesn't quite get it. Price transparency is sort of there as CMS's published rates. The problem is that's just the first mouth of the human centipede. It's a giant ball of crap, and the only way to "fix" the problems are to make them obsolete. Which is what I've been trying to do. Legislation is not going to fix anything. Repealing the individual mandate would be a YUGE relief though.

7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

Funny. Why don't they support the same position by ending the federal drug war?

 

[FoolKiller]

The LP is a ****ing joke, man. Half of the people there will be left-lib anarchocommunists, the other half will be fake libertarians with inconsistent principles and shaky intellectual foundations. Three quarters will be completely whacked out, and 5/8ths will be time-wasting losers.

I agree. It's why they'll never gain ground. Too many sound crazy and argue with each other.

Now, will there be punch and pie?

There is an "ice breaker" event Friday night, whatever that means.

 

[Tornado]

Sanders endorsing Clinton seems about as much of a sure thing as moderate Republicans voting for Hilary.

 

[Omnis]

There is an "ice breaker" event Friday night, whatever that means.

Hors d'oeuvres? Sorry, all we can afford is mints.

Most LPers are about as charismatic as a bic pen. The ones that are really good are usually nuts, and some are really off the charts when it comes to sociopathic charisma. There is too much intellectual diversity-- by which I mean there are too many stupid people that have been misguided-- within the party. A house divided cannot stand, right? Well, you can't exactly begin to make political inroads when a huge part of your membership is not aligned with the one true god. Most noobs start out in activism because they don't know any better. They're all in such a small bubble that's so insulated from the rest of society that they'll never make political inroads. It's much easier to manipulate by fallacy than to educate rationally.

 

[Sanji Himura]

There is a report out on The Hill, this coming off the heels of Romney's surprise press conference tomorrow that FOX News CEO Roger Ailes is reportedly finished with Marco Rubio, and they will stop providing favorable coverage to the Florida Senator, according to three sources.

Ailes gor angry over a New York Times article that told of a dinner that the two had in 2013, with the Senator asking for the network's support over the Gang of Eight amnesty bill. On top of that, the CEO is frustrated over Rubio's poor performance in Super Tuesday, where he took Minnesota and a somewhat strong showing in Virginia (though the majority of his numbers were from the DC area of the state), and is convinced that he is losing traction.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271569-report-fox-news-finished-with-rubio

 

[squadops]

Sanders endorsing Clinton seems about as much of a sure thing as moderate Republicans voting for Hilary.

Not everyone can be Joe Lieberman, or do I not understand?

 

[mustafur]

Raising taxes on a specific population is a violation of rights - specifically equal protection.

Not when they are are not equal, rights violations only exist if they are at an equal stage, having an off shore bank account to avoid tax isn't a right.

Taxing Wall Street Speculation also equally effects everyone considering anyone can trade on the stock market.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm copying and pasting this from my Facebook post, so some of you might have seen it already. As I see it we're all screwed at this o:,

Since I don't favor any of the Republicans or Democrats I have decided that the ideal general election ballot would be Trump vs.Hillary. It's not because I think they are the lesser of the evils, but because I want to watch American voters deal with the system they have allowed to form in politics.

See, there are plenty of Republicans who absolutely cannot stand Trump. They equally can't stand Hillary. Suddenly their lesser than two evils looks like Satan vs. Lucifer.

And then there are the Bernie supporters. There's a Bernie or Bust movement forming. These are people who claim they will write in for Bernie or vote for the Green Party candidate. They constantly claim they will not vote for Hillary.

So, the question becomes: will these adamant, principled voters stick to their guns? Or will Republicans look at Hillary and vote for Trump to stop her, even though they can't stand him? Will Bernie supporters look at Trump and vote for Hillary to stop him, despite what they've been saying?

See, a Trump vs. Hillary election will be won by the party with the most voters who are willing to abandon their principles. Since I never intended to vote for either party I can vote with a clear conscience. I gave up on this system long ago and I now have a possible chance to crack open a beer and watch the world burn.

I hope that if that happens that the world proves me wrong. I hope a third party candidate or a Bernie write-in gets enough votes to prevent Trump or Hillary from getting the required number of electors (270) to win. But my faith in the American voters is not that strong.

 

[mustafur]

But Sanders is probably far more likely to withdraw from the race and endorse Clinton to take on Trump because he realises the value to the Democrat cause than Trump is to withdraw and endorse Cruz or Rubio to take on Clinton. Sure, Trump might be a juggernaut in his own right, but all Clinton has to do is position herself as the adult in the room and she can appeal to moderate Republicans alarmed by Trump's rise to power.

I doubt it, he runs as an independent in the senate.

 

[CodeRedR51]

But my faith in the American voters is not that strong.

Well you don't have to worry about me. If my guy's out, so am I.

 

[Omnis]

Not when they are are not equal, rights violations only exist if they are at an equal stage, having an off shore bank account to avoid tax isn't a right.

Man, that is such an indoctrinated thing to say.

Taxing wall street speculation is a huge mistake. The whole idea is not even in the right ballpark. What does that even mean? It's just a bunch of buzzwords strung together to appeal to people's emotions. Market speculation is a good thing. It's been vilified over the past decade because the government was letting cronies borrow free money with which to "speculate". They reduced it to what amounted to gambling. That's called moral hazard in economic terms. So who is to blame for a gambler losing? You can't blame the blackjack dealer or the gambler. The guy who let the gambler bet an unlimited amount of other people's money is who should be blamed. Speculation would become even more beneficial if the real problem were addressed by having free and unlimited access to other people's money. In other words, let the market set interest rates.

 

[Tornado]

Not everyone can be Joe Lieberman, or do I not understand?

Sanders has run his campaign so far in a way that doesn't make me think he is going to endorse Hilary if the writing gets on the wall. From Bernie I get the sense that if he gives up, he's just going to quit. No ass kissing for a potential cabinet spot like Hilary did in 2008. He's not going to endorse someone who doesn't seem to share a single political view with him, because otherwise what was the point of him even running when the odds were so stacked from the start?



Foolkiller already covered the other part.

 

[mustafur]

Man, that is such an indoctrinated thing to say.

Taxing wall street speculation is a huge mistake. The whole idea is not even in the right ballpark. What does that even mean? It's just a bunch of buzzwords strung together to appeal to people's emotions. Market speculation is a good thing. It's been vilified over the past decade because the government was letting cronies borrow free money with which to "speculate". They reduced it to what amounted to gambling. That's called moral hazard in economic terms. So who is to blame for a gambler losing? You can't blame the blackjack dealer or the gambler. The guy who let the gambler bet an unlimited amount of other people's money is who should be blamed. Speculation would become even more beneficial if the real problem were addressed by having free and unlimited access to other people's money. In other words, let the market set interest rates.

So long as we have a Rigged market we definitely should have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

Cause of issue^

Let's be real here that logic will not appeal to the public ever, whilst it would make the most sense to have a market to decide the interest rates, the Government are too scared of the busts that come with the booms they will never allow it to happen.

 

[Danoff]

Not when they are are not equal, rights violations only exist if they are at an equal stage, having an off shore bank account to avoid tax isn't a right.

Explain to me how the mythical off-shore bank account actually works to avoid legitimate US taxes. I can see how it works to avoid illegitimate taxes, but not legit ones. For example, if you live in the US but own a company that is entirely operated, warehoused, and has all sales in Canada... who gets the tax money? Who should get the tax money? Having an off-shore bank account doesn't allow you to launder your US income away from the IRS.

Taxing Wall Street Speculation also equally effects everyone considering anyone can trade on the stock market.

How does one tax speculation? Why would one tax speculation?

Ultimately, when you invest in a company via wall street, you invest in the company. Are we really saying we want to discourage people from investing in companies? We want people to take money out of circulation? We'd like to reduce the velocity of money? That's the exact opposite of what the government has been preaching (so it must have some merit). Let's say you're speculating on a company that isn't publicly traded, should we tax that? If I loan my buddy $20k to get his new business off the ground, I should be taxed on what? The 20k I loaned him? That I already paid tax on? That's beyond insane. Let's just make it illegal to have small businesses. While we're at it, let's make it illegal to invest in GM too, I'm sure that won't lead to more bailouts.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

To be fair those states she won are of the same demographic as South Carolina, with majority black voters who do not support Sanders favourable at all however the only state she won with Majority white voters was Massachusetts and that was basically a tie, considering Black voters don't make up the majority of voters and the fact the majority of those states that have them in big numbers have already voted I would still give him a chance in this race.

Who isn't giving him a chance? No one said he doesn't have a chance just that early leads of such margin are hard to close in on. He has a chance but it's distant. Like it or not, let's be realist.

Super delegates whilst committed to Hillary now can't actually commit anything till the convention, and the end of the day it will come down to that.

Sure, and Santa eats the cookies I leave out for him. In other words their is a clear establishment set up here, which has been publicly seen. The DNC chair herself has been caught out say more or less the super delegates in the first place are a setup/ploy for establishment candidates.

The longer the race goes though the more chance Hillary gets hard by scandals that may force the Super delegates to change decision, simply from a credibility view.

So what? People clearly have blinders on toward her do no wrong bs she's committed, just like those optimistic viewers of Sanders seeing a "Real chance for her to feelthebern" but... one clearly out weighs the others.

Also again, as a realist -or cynic in the eyes of Bernie fans and perhaps Clinton voters as well- if the scandals that have been on going for a coupe years now (benghazi) have yet to sway the majority that she's winning over nothing will. Short of shooting someone in the back, what do you really see coming from these scandals that will cause her to lose the public? They don't give a damn, when will people realize this?

I would still say at this point Hillary is still the clear favourite but in actual pledged delegates I would say it's still very open just looking at the demographics of who has voted and who will be voting in the future.

Such as? The only big state that I could see being a challenge are Florida for example. New York is hers, Michigan hers, Illinois hers, California...what else is left after she's won all those? Nothing.