US Elections 2016

[Hurlshort]

Geez, that donor chart makes Jeb Bush look really silly.  

 

Trump and Clinton both have the same issue, in that they will not be able to pull many voters from the other side of the aisle.  I mean it would be great if people actually took that into account when going through the primary, but most people who obstinately vote for one party all the time don't tend to do a lot of independent thinking.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Whoever can use an abacus better, that's who I'm voting for. Starting to look like Trump. 

Can I ask you a question, aren't you concerned about the numerous concerning comments Trump has made about USA foreign policy and he would do things?

 

When all the choices are bad what does that matter? Bluster and arrogance on one hand vs. cowardice and obeisance to enemies on the other.

 

 

 

 

I don't think there is an official definition for a natural born citizen. He's a citizen by birth since his mom was a citizen so most consider that satisfactory. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about that

There's a debate whether natural born citizen just means citizen by birth or whether the original constitutional meaning was from English common law, which supposedly meant you were born in the country with some exceptions: http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-01-13.html

 

 

 

PS Dem debate tonight

Hmmmm.... wouldn't Bernie be more likely to be the Sith Lord? He's the one whose for authoritarian government that takes everything away from everyone.

 

Or... maybe I'M the sith lord? Maybe from my point of view the Jedi are evil.

 

Jedi are obviously commies. There's even a story about the rebel alliance being based on Viet Cong. 

 

 

Whoever can use an abacus better, that's who I'm voting for. Starting to look like Trump.

Can I ask you a question, aren't you concerned about the numerous concerning comments Trump has made about USA foreign policy and he would do things?

 

You should be more specific and state a few examples.

 

Sure, he has said several that concern me

 

• He wants to restructure the economic relationship between the USA and countries like China, Japan and ...Mexico
• He wants to relook at the Iran negotiation
• He thinks the USA should really target ISIS using strategies like " bombing oilfields
• His views towards Muslims have annoyed many Muslim countries in the ME who should be on better terms with the USA
• The Mexican wall and his intent to deport millions of illegal Mexicans ...

 

 

Sure it may just his strategy but these comments concern me 

Edited January 18, 2016 by BruceVC

[Oerwinde]

[*]He thinks the USA should really target ISIS using strategies like " bombing oilfields

 

 

Sure it may just his strategy but these comments concern me

Why is this concerning? Cut off their money supply, cripple them. Seems like sound strategy. Probably why Russia did it in the first week they started attacking ISIS.

[Zoraptor]

Geez, that donor chart makes Jeb Bush look really silly. 

 

I always thought Bush v3 had a far harder task than either previous iteration or than most pundits thought. 8 years wasn't anywhere near enough to forget Bush v2 and he never seemed to have the folksiness of his brother or the slickness of someone like Bill Clinton, basically he looked not very inspiring or likely to get people in general to want to vote for him. He's precisely the sort of candidate that pundits pick because he checks boxes and they themselves would vote for him. If anything I'd say that the chart makes the large donors look particularly silly, much like that pair of utter Kochs backing Scott Walker so early made them look a bit silly when he dropped out.

[Raithe]

Presidential Aging?

[BruceVC]

 

[*]He thinks the USA should really target ISIS using strategies like " bombing oilfields

 

 

Sure it may just his strategy but these comments concern me

Why is this concerning? Cut off their money supply, cripple them. Seems like sound strategy. Probably why Russia did it in the first week they started attacking ISIS.

 

Most of the oilfields don't belong to ISIS and all you do is add to the  overall financial cost of rebuilding Syria.... but also I have seen no evidence of ISIS slowing down, in fact since Russia correctly intervened I would say ISIS global activity has increased ?

[Leferd]

.... but also I have seen no evidence of ISIS slowing down, in fact since Russia correctly intervened I would say ISIS global activity has increased ?

 

 

False. The current strategy is beating back ISIS. Realizing they're losing in Iraq and the Levant, they're advocating more terrorist type attacks.

 

ISIS has lost 40% of their territory in Iraq and 20% in Syria. Ever since coalition air strikes have begun en masse, ISIS has not gained any new territory.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-lost-40-percent-territory-iraq-20-percent-syria-coalition-n490426

 

However, because of the effectiveness of the airstrikes, ISIS is pivoting their strategy in Syria which may complicate coalition strategy. Atleast according to a hawkish think-tank.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/15/377527015/is-u-s-gaining-or-losing-ground-against-isis

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/11/19/456600398/hitting-isis-where-it-hurts-by-striking-oil-trucks

 

Cutting off ISIS financing is an important element of strategy against the group. The U.S. has targeted ISIS oil infrastructure — wells, pipelines and the like — for more than a year, but these are often quickly repaired by militants. The U.S. bombed ISIS oil facilities last year, but waited until now to make its first attack on the trucks that actually move the crude.

 

It's a war of attrition at this point.

 

1) Militarily, airstrikes are greatly impacting ISIS' ability to wage war. They're not going to gain any new territory. Meanwhile the Iraqi army is building up and training for a more sustained and overwhelming offensive on the ground.

 

2) Hitting their ability to raise money. Oilfields have been discussed. Their next big moneymaker is in the dealing of black market antiquities. Various U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are specifically targeting this market in conjunction with allied intelligence agencies and international police. Lots of behind the scenes work.

 

Wahhabism and general terrorism is going to continue to be an international security issue for the next several decades as the Muslim world is in a period of significant transition, but ISIS as a major threat to U.S. or western security is overstated.

[Gfted1]

Pentagon releases video of U.S. bombing 'millions' in ISIS cash.

 

Cool, yet saddening, video of millions of dollars getting nailed by two 2000lb bombs.

[BruceVC]

 

.... but also I have seen no evidence of ISIS slowing down, in fact since Russia correctly intervened I would say ISIS global activity has increased ?

 

 

False. The current strategy is beating back ISIS. Realizing they're losing in Iraq and the Levant, they're advocating more terrorist type attacks.

 

ISIS has lost 40% of their territory in Iraq and 20% in Syria. Ever since coalition air strikes have begun en masse, ISIS has not gained any new territory.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-lost-40-percent-territory-iraq-20-percent-syria-coalition-n490426

 

However, because of the effectiveness of the airstrikes, ISIS is pivoting their strategy in Syria which may complicate coalition strategy. Atleast according to a hawkish think-tank.

 

http://www.npr.org/2015/01/15/377527015/is-u-s-gaining-or-losing-ground-against-isis

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/11/19/456600398/hitting-isis-where-it-hurts-by-striking-oil-trucks

 

Cutting off ISIS financing is an important element of strategy against the group. The U.S. has targeted ISIS oil infrastructure — wells, pipelines and the like — for more than a year, but these are often quickly repaired by militants. The U.S. bombed ISIS oil facilities last year, but waited until now to make its first attack on the trucks that actually move the crude.

 

It's a war of attrition at this point.

 

1) Militarily, airstrikes are greatly impacting ISIS' ability to wage war. They're not going to gain any new territory. Meanwhile the Iraqi army is building up and training for a more sustained and overwhelming offensive on the ground.

 

2) Hitting their ability to raise money. Oilfields have been discussed. Their next big moneymaker is in the dealing of black market antiquities. Various U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are specifically targeting this market in conjunction with allied intelligence agencies and international police. Lots of behind the scenes work.

 

Wahhabism and general terrorism is going to continue to be an international security issue for the next several decades as the Muslim world is in a period of significant transition, but ISIS as a major threat to U.S. or western security is overstated.

 

You cannot defeat ISIS relying just on airstrikes, you will need ground troops

 

ISIS is still very effective 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3403413/ISIS-kidnapped-400-civilians-Syria-including-women-children-attack-government-held-city.html

 

Its interesting to read your links but I am talking about the reality of the group war and things like destroying the oilfields dont have the impact we think on therere fighting capacity 

[Leferd]

Air strikes are impacting ISIS's ability to wage conventional warfare with the explicit purpose of taking and holding new territory. They can still go on raids, but the days of blitzes like Mosul are done,

 

Syria is a quagmire and is in worst shape and this may be where ISIS will retreat to. However, putting U.S. Or coalition "boots on the ground" is not the solution. There will certainly be a ground major offensive in Iraq to take back the remaining ISIS held territory, but it'll primarily be Iraqi forces and nothing will be resolved until the Shiite government makes some concessions with the Sunni minority --that's ripe recruiting ground for ISIS. And things certainly won't improve until Wahhabism has been tempered by the more moderate and mainstream Sunnis in the ME.

[Volourn]

"Presidential Aging?"

 

Or maybe  people age as years go by.. then again, being  leader of the country (of the most 'powerful' nation or so it is said) also leads to stress... So, why do you come across as shocked or surprised you made some special discovery? L0L

[Raithe]

"Presidential Aging?"

 

Or maybe  people age as years go by.. then again, being  leader of the country (of the most 'powerful' nation or so it is said) also leads to stress... So, why do you come across as shocked or surprised you made some special discovery? L0L

 

It was more the snark on Trump there...

[Zoraptor]

ISIS has lost 40% of their territory in Iraq and 20% in Syria. Ever since coalition air strikes have begun en masse, ISIS has not gained any new territory.

They've definitely lost nett territory over that time, but they have also gained territory over that time- Ramadi (until recently, and it still isn't wholly retaken even now), Palmyra and Qaryatayn were all taken post intervention.

 

The air strikes have actually done what they were supposed to do very well, it's just that what they were asked to do wasn't what most people thought it was up until recently- destroying ISIS wasn't the aim because that would benefit Assad especially, funnelling ISIS against regional enemies on the other hand was a great idea. Everyone knew that oil tankers were going from ISIS areas to Turkey, usually via intermediaries in the mainstream rebels and had been doing so for a long time benefiting Turkey/ rebels/ ISIS by millions per month, but nobody did anything about it until Russia got peeved and started doing it. (Makeshift) Oil refineries were regularly bombed though, for obvious reasons.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3403413/ISIS-kidnapped-400-civilians-Syria-including-women-children-attack-government-held-city.html

 

About 60 abductees seems to be the real estimate. Not surprised that the Daily Fail went with the higher number, of course.

 

Things in Deir ez Zor might get interesting though, there's a sandstorm at the moment and a major ISIS attack (really an extension of the one above) coinciding with it. There's supposedly about 200k civilians in the government controlled area.

[licketysplit]

 

Whoever can use an abacus better, that's who I'm voting for. Starting to look like Trump. 

Can I ask you a question, aren't you concerned about the numerous concerning comments Trump has made about USA foreign policy and he would do things?

 

 

About muslims? I'm fine with it. Keep 'em out for a while. Let them think about whether they really want to adopt western values or not. If they can't, then I don't want them here. There's always Sweden. The other reason I want Trump to win is to see the vapid, leftist media explode into righteous fury. Besides, I voted for Obama and seeing how the left has evolved with him in office...no thanks. I don't need any more of that. I can hardly relate to being a liberal anymore. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

• He wants to restructure the economic relationship between the USA and countries like China, Japan and ...Mexico
• He wants to relook at the Iran negotiation
• He thinks the USA should really target ISIS using strategies like " bombing oilfields
• His views towards Muslims have annoyed many Muslim countries in the ME who should be on better terms with the USA
• The Mexican wall and his intent to deport millions of illegal Mexicans ...

So what, we've lost millions of jobs while building up enemies like China.

He said he'd abide by the agreement, of course it depends on Iran's compliance.

Even Obola finally saw the wisdom of that strategy, only ISIS controlled oil fields would be bombed.

It's a security issue, our government obviously has no idea of who's getting into the country.

The wall is absolutely necessary if we're going to have a country left. He won't actually be able to deport most illegals but at least he can start enforcing the law.

[Calax]

 

So what, we've lost millions of jobs while building up enemies like China.

He said he'd abide by the agreement, of course it depends on Iran's compliance.

Even Obola finally saw the wisdom of that strategy, only ISIS controlled oil fields would be bombed.

It's a security issue, our government obviously has no idea of who's getting into the country.

The wall is absolutely necessary if we're going to have a country left. He won't actually be able to deport most illegals but at least he can start enforcing the law.

 

You do realize that the only jobs we've "exported" is basic manufacturing which is mostly handled by machines at this point (Seriously, a US auto plant worker is something akin to 20 times more productive than their Chinese or Mexican counterpart). And that within the next 4-6 years Chinas economy is going to contract drastically because they can't pay for the stuff they're buying.

 

Do we seriously want to see gas prices get to 4 bucks a gallon again by bombing oil production? As it is, Iraq's economy is in ruins, blowing up what little they have isn't going to endear ourselves to anyone.

 

Can you not see his targeting based on religion has some... Godwinnian implications?

 

And how are we going to pay for that? By pulling money from the Dwight D. Eisenhower freeway system? It's not "YO MEXCOCO! YOU PAY FOR WALL I BUILD KAY!?" and the magical Mexican money rolls in.

[Namutree]

 

 

So what, we've lost millions of jobs while building up enemies like China.

 

Not really, and China's not an enemy. Not that they're friends. 

 

 

 

The wall is absolutely necessary if we're going to have a country left. He won't actually be able to deport most illegals but at least he can start enforcing the law.

 

Not only is a wall not "absolutely necessary", it's not even the best approach to the illegal immigration issue. Not to mention the criminal cartels will almost certainly find a work around (people with their resources and ingenuity could likely devise many) so long as there is so much money to be made smuggling drugs into the US. Until the cartels massive financial incentives are dealt with any attempts at fixing our immigration woes will be severely hampered.

[Hurlshort]

It's pretty weird to think of our second largest trade partner as an enemy.  Of course it is also weird to talk about building a massive militarized wall between our 3rd largest trade partner.  Actually when you look at our trade with Mexico, what stands out is how much we export TO them.  China is practically a one way relationship, whereas Mexico is buying nearly as much as they are selling.

 

So yeah, let's build a wall with the country that takes in over 200 billion US products a year.  Yay for diplomacy.  

[BruceVC]

Air strikes are impacting ISIS's ability to wage conventional warfare with the explicit purpose of taking and holding new territory. They can still go on raids, but the days of blitzes like Mosul are done,

 

Syria is a quagmire and is in worst shape and this may be where ISIS will retreat to. However, putting U.S. Or coalition "boots on the ground" is not the solution. There will certainly be a ground major offensive in Iraq to take back the remaining ISIS held territory, but it'll primarily be Iraqi forces and nothing will be resolved until the Shiite government makes some concessions with the Sunni minority --that's ripe recruiting ground for ISIS. And things certainly won't improve until Wahhabism has been tempered by the more moderate and mainstream Sunnis in the ME.

 

Leferd there is something I need to clarify, Trump has based many of his foreign policy decisions on anti-Obama sentiment. In other words " Obama has made the USA weak "

 

Its normal in politics and this is especially prevalent in the USA at the moment with the various social changes Obama has made and wants to make and there seems to me to  be an almost unprecedented dislike of him from the Republicans . So Trump thinks as far as ISIS is concerned " bombing the oilfields " is something Obama is scared to do or just lacks the political will to do. So what  I am really saying is " bombing the oilfields " is not something the USA has historically   done because Obama is weak or stupid. Its because that strategy is not going to fundamentally defeat ISIS. As mentioned ground troops will be needed

 

 

• He wants to restructure the economic relationship between the USA and countries like China, Japan and ...Mexico
• He wants to relook at the Iran negotiation
• He thinks the USA should really target ISIS using strategies like " bombing oilfields
• His views towards Muslims have annoyed many Muslim countries in the ME who should be on better terms with the USA
• The Mexican wall and his intent to deport millions of illegal Mexicans ...

So what, we've lost millions of jobs while building up enemies like China.

He said he'd abide by the agreement, of course it depends on Iran's compliance.

Even Obola finally saw the wisdom of that strategy, only ISIS controlled oil fields would be bombed.

It's a security issue, our government obviously has no idea of who's getting into the country.

The wall is absolutely necessary if we're going to have a country left. He won't actually be able to deport most illegals but at least he can start enforcing the law.

 

WOD as mentioned by others the Wall is a bad idea and makes no practical sense

 

I will disagree slightly with the view that the Wall will make " no difference ". A  real patrolled and maintained wall with stop an element of Mexicans and others, people just trying to enter the USA to work illegally. But there is no doubt it will only slowdown the Drug Cartels efforts to get drugs into the USA, these cartels are very industrious and well resourced so I can almost guarantee you the Wall won't stop the criminals it intends to stop. The Israelis have had success with there Wall but there threat and security requirement is much more severe that what the USA faces 

 

So then you should ask  " is the solution that the mightiest country in the world has to prevent illegal immigrants really the building of a wall between Mexico and the USA ". Is that really the threat to the USA that is so severe a Wall is needed to be built, its like  the USA has to cut itself from those " troublemakers down South " ?

 

As Hurlshot mentioned Mexico is not an enemy of the USA but building a wall will create an impression that it is and that is not necessary 

Edited January 19, 2016 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

 

What did you think about Donald Trump?

He is a demagogue and even though I can recognize his skill in industry and business acumen he also represents the worst aspects of Capitalism

 

He is arrogant, dismissive. bombastic and has very little regard for the consequences of his words or views.

 

...and a history of bankruptcies where others are left to pick up the bills. Funnily enough, the costs of his business misadventures roughly matches his estimated personal fortune

 

He reminds me a lot of Silvio Berlusconi. Except Berlusconi is the more successful business man.

 

Edit to add:

 

Funny thing about the British system, if a petition gets enough signatures, parliament is required by law to debate it:

 

MPs to debate call to ban Donald Trump from UK

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Do we seriously want to see gas prices get to 4 bucks a gallon again by bombing oil production? As it is, Iraq's economy is in ruins, blowing up what little they have isn't going to endear ourselves to anyone.

 

 

Is ISIS controlled oil factored into world oil prices though, since it isn't traded legally?

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Do we seriously want to see gas prices get to 4 bucks a gallon again by bombing oil production? As it is, Iraq's economy is in ruins, blowing up what little they have isn't going to endear ourselves to anyone.

 

 

Is ISIS controlled oil factored into world oil prices though, since it isn't traded legally?

 

 

It effects how much there is demand for legally produced oil. And oil price is determined by how much demand there are compared to amount oil that is produced. But I would guess that ISIS controlled oil has quite marginal impact on oil prices. 

[kgambit]

 

 

 

 

Do we seriously want to see gas prices get to 4 bucks a gallon again by bombing oil production? As it is, Iraq's economy is in ruins, blowing up what little they have isn't going to endear ourselves to anyone.

 

 

Is ISIS controlled oil factored into world oil prices though, since it isn't traded legally?

 

 

It effects how much there is demand for legally produced oil. And oil price is determined by how much demand there are compared to amount oil that is produced. But I would guess that ISIS controlled oil has quite marginal impact on oil prices. 

 

 

ISIS oil production (in Syria and Iraq combined) accounts for ~ 0.04 % to 0.1% of global production (~96 mbpd)  and has a negligible impact on global markets.    It's beyond laughable to think that cutting off ISIS production would result in a catastrophic price increase when there is a current over-supply of roughly 1.9 mbpd and oil stockpiles increased by nearly 2 billion barrels in 2015.   Iran will have a far bigger impact on global markets if/when it increases its production by nearly 800,000 bpd after production limiting sanctions are removed. 

Edited January 19, 2016 by kgambit

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Do we seriously want to see gas prices get to 4 bucks a gallon again by bombing oil production? As it is, Iraq's economy is in ruins, blowing up what little they have isn't going to endear ourselves to anyone.

 

 

Is ISIS controlled oil factored into world oil prices though, since it isn't traded legally?

 

 

It effects how much there is demand for legally produced oil. And oil price is determined by how much demand there are compared to amount oil that is produced. But I would guess that ISIS controlled oil has quite marginal impact on oil prices. 

 

 

ISIS oil production (in Syria and Iraq combined) accounts for ~ 0.5 to 1% of global production (~96 mbpd)  and has a negligible impact on global markets.    It's beyond laughable to think that cutting off ISIS production would result in a catastrophic price increase when there is a current over-supply of roughly 1.9 mbpd and oil stockpiles increased by nearly 2 billion barrels in 2015.   Iran will have a far bigger impact on global markets if/when it increases it production by nearly 800,000 bpd after production limiting sanctions are removed. 

 

I agree demand and supply are linked but at the moment there is a deliberate oversupply from OPEC  which is why the Oil price is so low, its not about demand

 

Iran is just going to add to this oversupply and the oil will stay low if not get lower  

Edited January 19, 2016 by BruceVC

[Namutree]

It's pretty weird to think of our second largest trade partner as an enemy.  Of course it is also weird to talk about building a massive militarized wall between our 3rd largest trade partner.  Actually when you look at our trade with Mexico, what stands out is how much we export TO them.  China is practically a one way relationship, whereas Mexico is buying nearly as much as they are selling.

 

So yeah, let's build a wall with the country that takes in over 200 billion US products a year.  Yay for diplomacy.  

Well it's not like the wall would mean no more trade between us and Mexico.