[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Akira AC]

US gun companies exporting illegal arms is NOT the same as US Government getting involved in world events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle#F-15I

All of that is government, not companies.

Okay, so it is ok for the government to do the Iraq invasion of 2003?

It is ok for governments to sell weapons after the fact?

 

[RC45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle#F-15I

Okay, so it is ok for the government to do the Iraq invasion of 2003?

It is ok for governments to sell weapons after the fact?

What does this have to do with the civilian owned gun in America - which I think was the point of your post. And the F15 Eagle thing? What does that have to do with the election cycle?

 

[Sanji Himura]

OP EDIT News: Added the Real Clear Politics Averages for the Party Nomination. This will be updated on the first and the fifteenth of the month.

 

[Danoff]

Okay, so it is ok for the government to do the Iraq invasion of 2003?

Yes, but I don't see how it's related.

It is ok for governments to sell weapons after the fact?

This is actually a really fascinating question that I've never given much thought to. What are governments allowed to do when it comes to liquidating leftover physical assets? How have I not been faced with this question before? This is why I keep coming back to GTPlanet, because stuff like this makes me think.

(Also, some of the members are tolerable. )

 

[Sanji Himura]

This is actually a really fascinating question that I've never given much thought to. What are governments allowed to do when it comes to liquidating leftover physical assets? How have I not been faced with this question before? This is why I keep coming back to GTPlanet, because stuff like this makes me think.

(Also, some of the members are tolerable. )

I actually think that it is less than that and more with the fact that the US, as a general policy, doesn't take their weapons and vehicles with them when they leave an armed conflict/peacekeeping mission. They say that it is actually cheaper to build new stuff than it is to take it with them. In some respects that is true because weapon maintenance can get expensive and advancements in technology can lower production costs. However, just rearming our military after each conflict can be a dangerous game as well, and you only have to look at the successes of ISIS as proof of that. A lot of their gains were done with US weapons that were left behind when they left Iraq.

 

[ukfan758]

I wonder what the candidates stances are on these multi-billion dollar mergers of corporations for the sake of horizontal integration for a possible monopoly. Examples include Dow Chemical and DuPont, Time Warner Cable-Charter-Bright House merge, AT&T and Direct TV, United Airlines and Continental, finally American and US Airways.

 

[Swagger897]

I wonder what the candidates stances are on these multi-billion dollar mergers of corporations for the sake of horizontal integration for a possible monopoly. Examples include Dow Chemical and DuPont, Time Warner Cable-Charter-Bright House merge, AT&T and Direct TV, United Airlines and Continental, finally American and US Airways.

The airline industry will never have a monopoly. Yes, there is reports of collusion, but the government knows nothing when it comes to aviation...

And doing my financial analysis for American last week, they better find a way to bring themselves out of debt for sale that they've created. Cash flow is not enough from what I looked at. They took on 100% more property and equipment then they already had, but the generated cash has to sustain.

 

[GTPorsche]

He really doesn't know how politics work, does he?

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Does he have slightest idea of how anything works? If he is elected (fat chance that), it means that Idiocracy becomes reality far sooner than expected.

 

[ExigeEvan]

This is not in support of Trump, but...

So what if he doesn't know how politics works? The complexity of politics is what has kept the political class in their fortress for so long. But let's not forget that even an experienced politician like Obama made promises to close Bush-era institutions, and has failed miserably.

 

[RC45]

This is not in support of Trump, but...

So what if he doesn't know how politics works? The complexity of politics is what has kept the political class in their fortress for so long. But let's not forget that even an experienced politician like Obama made promises to close Bush-era institutions, and has failed miserably.

What he said. Except I would change it to read:

The complexity of politics is what has kept the political class in their fortress for too long.

Some of these idiot career politicians have been sucking on the government teat for 40 and 50 years.

 

[A2K78]

I wonder what the candidates stances are on these multi-billion dollar mergers of corporations for the sake of horizontal integration for a possible monopoly. Examples include Dow Chemical and DuPont, Time Warner Cable-Charter-Bright House merge, AT&T and Direct TV, United Airlines and Continental, finally American and US Airways.

I don't understand what why people are so against monopolies, this when you consider the consider the fact that consumers really do benefit from monopolies. As for these mergers, personally I see nothing wrong them this when you consider the fact that mergers reflect the state of the economy e.g. the need to better compete and survive.

For record, I highly recommend you read Myth Of The Robber Barrons.

 

[GTPorsche]

How do consumers benefit from monopolies?

 

[A2K78]

How do consumers benefit from monopolies?

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons

 

[Swagger897]

How do consumers benefit from monopolies?

Less price fluctuation. You see super low rates on tv for phone deals from carriers, internet and tv providers too.

But after you stick with them long enough your rates climb unless you switch to someone else.

 

[GTPorsche]

Less price fluctuation. You see super low rates on tv for phone deals from carriers, internet and tv providers too.

But after you stick with them long enough your rates climb unless you switch to someone else.

That's not benefiting at all. Since there's no one to offer a better deal, they're free to charge whatever they please. Only one that benefits in a monopoly is the corporation.

 

[Sanji Himura]

That's not benefiting at all. Since there's no one to offer a better deal, they're free to charge whatever they please. Only one that benefits in a monopoly is the corporation.

That is more to blame on the regulatory arms of the government more than anything. Prices for health insurance, for example, had remained low for the most part because people and companies could buy the amount of coverage that they wanted to provide their employees. After Obamacare was signed into law, those massive drops in coverage, was people who had better coverage than the law mandated and were dropped because their previous coverage was illegal under the new law.

This flooded the marketplace with new customers looking for legal coverage because they were going to get slapped with a tax if they don't get insured.

 

[Swagger897]

That's not benefiting at all. Since there's no one to offer a better deal, they're free to charge whatever they please. Only one that benefits in a monopoly is the corporation.

No, what i tried to say is that people are jumping ship after their two year contract is up, and their rates climb. If it was just two companies, rates would stay low because pwople wouldnt switch.

 

[BobK]

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons

Fascinating article. However nowhere does it back your statement that monopolies benefit consumers; in fact it refutes it in a few places.

 

[ukfan758]

I don't understand what why people are so against monopolies, this when you consider the consider the fact that consumers really do benefit from monopolies. As for these mergers, personally I see nothing wrong them this when you consider the fact that mergers reflect the state of the economy e.g. the need to better compete and survive.

For record, I highly recommend you read Myth Of The Robber Barrons.

1. Monopolies can set the price of their product at whatever they want without the fear of losing sales by a rival corporation with lower prices.
2. When corporations merge, the employees get thrown under the bus. For example, with the Heinz-Kraft merge, 2,500 employees were laid off.

 

[Sanji Himura]

2. When corporations merge, the employees get thrown under the bus. For example, with the Heinz-Kraft merge, 2,500 employees were laid off.

A lot of those layoffs are redundant jobs that they don't need any more. I have a brother who was a plate maker at a printing company (3rd generation of printers). His former employment was sold to another company that was headquartered in Dallas (also a printing company). They let him go because his job at his shift was redundant.

Sure the headlines and the story might say that 2,500 employees were laid off, but you never get the reason why.

 

[ukfan758]

A lot of those layoffs are redundant jobs that they don't need any more. I have a brother who was a plate maker at a printing company (3rd generation of printers). His former employment was sold to another company that was headquartered in Dallas (also a printing company). They let him go because his job at his shift was redundant.

Sure the headlines and the story might say that 2,500 employees were laid off, but you never get the reason why.

But still, that's thousands of people losing their jobs.

 

[Sanji Himura]

But still, that's thousands of people losing their jobs.

I didn't say that I disagreed with you, I'm just saying that half the story is told in the media, and the company in question gets the riot act for something that is economically sound, such as cutting the labor force to get rid of redundant jobs.

 

[dxm8975]

Does he have slightest idea of how anything works? If he is elected (fat chance that), it means that Idiocracy becomes reality far sooner than expected.

And this can be a proof that even an educated, such kind of apparently "high brow" magnate endowed with enough substance and personal asset(in fact Donald Trump himself is the owner of tons of buildings named after his family name(i.e. Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, Trump Taj Mahal), can't become a future leader of the country without any of the clever political ideas, as it's crucial for him to make sensible judgments and statements when it comes to reigning one country and keep its citizens pleased with his own policies as long as possible, in accordance with the ideal goals the country has to achieve at that moment.

After having read the comments posted on the news articles about his "Hatred Speech" toward Muslims he made last Monday, it seemed to me like some of the people were still optimistic over his high-handed personality and his radical behaviours for considering him doing that "on purpose" as part of his tricks for entertaining these morons devoid of clear mindsets like usual, but with that statement we did see the evidence that he was still "immature" as a politician that is enough trust-able as a person to whom we can leave the matters / decisions to his discretion.
(On a side note : In my country a Japanese politician "Youichi Masuzoe" who became the governor of Tokyo in 2014 also got severely criticized for his alike "Hatred Speech" toward Koreans living in Japan for calling them "unnecessary" as part of the society formed by mostly Japanese overwhelming population in Japan, seemingly reflecting the territorial issues between the country for the dominion of "Take-shima" islands, disputes concerning Japanese comfort women, and differences in view of history coming at odds one another.)

 

[Crash]

I don't understand what why people are so against monopolies, this when you consider the consider the fact that consumers really do benefit from monopolies.

No, consumers really don't.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And this can be a proof that even an educated, such kind of apparently "high brow" magnate endowed with enough substance and personal asset(in fact Donald Trump himself is the owner of tons of buildings named after his family name(i.e. Trump Tower, Trump Plaza, Trump Taj Mahal), can't become a future leader of the country without any of the clever political ideas, as it's crucial for him to make sensible judgments and statements when it comes to reigning one country and keep its citizens pleased with his own policies as long as possible, in accordance with the ideal goals the country has to achieve at that moment.

Trump's popularity is at least partly rooted in the belief that he will do what the country needs rather than simply keeping citizens "pleased". If all you want is to do what pleases the electorate just fire all the politicians and run the country using polling data, it would be much cheaper.

After having read the comments posted on the news articles about his "Hatred Speech" toward Muslims he made last Monday, it seemed to me like some of the people were still optimistic over his high-handed personality and his radical behaviours for considering him doing that "on purpose" as part of his tricks for entertaining these morons devoid of clear mindsets like usual, but with that statement we did see the evidence that he was still "immature" as a politician that is enough trust-able as a person to whom we can leave the matters / decisions to his discretion.

Another source of Trump's popularity is this kind of attitude towards conservatism and conservatives in general. It seems to be a popular thing these days to refer to conservatives as morons, radicals, idiots etc. Unfortunately those idiots have one vote just like the rest of us and if you 🤬 off enough of them they may just rise up and teach the country a lesson or two. If the dialogue between the left and right was a little more conciliatory on both sides and they were able to work together for the common good with a little give and take, there wouldn't be a Donald Trump or a Bernie Sanders for that matter.

 

[ukfan758]

Interesting article from the reporters section on the beeb regarding trump conspiracies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35066940

 

[dxm8975]

Trump's current rise is likely more due to terrorism fears than anything else, someone says.

Yeah seems partly "right"(?), provided that Donald still persisting he just made that kind of claim for all the Muslims who don't wish to get assaulted in retaliation of terrorist attacks by ISIS militants including the Paris gun-shootings in last month and shootings in California that claimed 14 lives approx 2 weeks ago, saying that "most of my Muslim friends from Middle eastern countries are so amicable to me". Albeit personally I think that's where his real intention is hidden.... in order to keep the country safe from those tramping menaces who are supposed to visit U.S. for the alike military attacks they did in France.

LOL what the heck is that ?? Hm it reminded me of the article of the American students studying in the universities in the U.S. fleeing altogether to neighboring Canada for not being capable of paying the increasing tuition fees for each semester several weeks back.... When I first saw the news of Donald Trump remaining "legitimately" on the top of the polls of the most "would-be" potent candidates from the Republican party I got terrified because I didn't really like his demeanor and his objectionable remarks in every speech, but now I can sorta feel relieved to know there are also some people who are repulsed by him for the same reason as me, alongside him being politically incorrect and out-of-place statements that mar his own reputation.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Major Shakeup in the Iowa Polls. According to the RCP Averages, Ted Cruz is now leading Iowa with 25% of the vote. The shake up occurred when Bloomberg released its latest poll showing Cruz getting 31% of the vote, opening a 10 point lead on Trump.

Due to the OP Update schedule, however, I will update Iowa on the 15th as scheduled.

 

[A2K78]

1. Monopolies can set the price of their product at whatever they want without the fear of losing sales by a rival corporation with lower prices.

This destroy you arguement:

2. When corporations merge, the employees get thrown under the bus. For example, with the Heinz-Kraft merge, 2,500 employees were laid off.

This true, but guess what? layoffs are needed in order for resources to be reallocated.

by the way, Schiff is awesome: